The government should allocate more funding to teaching sciences rather than other subjects in order for a country to develop and progress. To what extent do you agree?
Owing to the rapid growth of technology some people think that government should allocate more funding to teaching sciences rather than other subjects in order for a country to develop and progress. While many approve of this opinion, I strongly disagree.
On the one hand, no doubt that focusing on teaching sciences would increase human living standards. Works that used to be done by humans are now being done automatically thanks to cutting-edge technology. For example, some hospitals in the world adopt AI technology to diagnose patients’ symptoms. Furthermore, if science develops, military strength will escalate exponentially providing countries power to protect themself.
On the other hand, there are several drawbacks when a country’s science grows too rapidly. Firstly, giving science too much attention would weaken other fields. For instance, the investment for subjects such as history, geography, biology,ect being cut down would affect tourism which plays an important role in the economy of many countries. Another reason is that is cause labor to be unemployed. Industries and factories tend to replace humans with machines so as to make more profit. The unemployed will be the social burden resulting in a country recession, contrary to the original purpose.
In short, allocating more funding to teaching sciences brings certain benefits. I would argue that for long terms benefit governments should divide funding to all subjects equally.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 238, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , ect
...ects such as history, geography, biology,ect being cut down would affect tourism whi...
^^^^
Line 3, column 461, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...es tend to replace humans with machines so as to make more profit. The unemployed will b...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, furthermore, if, so, while, as to, for example, for instance, in short, no doubt, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 10.4138276553 19% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 8.0 24.0651302605 33% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 41.998997996 64% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1246.0 1615.20841683 77% => OK
No of words: 225.0 315.596192385 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.53777777778 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.87298334621 4.20363070211 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81128589707 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 176.041082164 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.675555555556 0.561755894193 120% => OK
syllable_count: 371.7 506.74238477 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.9620355552 49.4020404114 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.0 106.682146367 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.0714285714 20.7667163134 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.85714285714 7.06120827912 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.358160624368 0.244688304435 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106236902547 0.084324248473 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.1454982698 0.0667982634062 218% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.245087938701 0.151304729494 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.154755363521 0.056905535591 272% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.0946893788 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 50.2224549098 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.3001002004 95% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.56 12.4159519038 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.48 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 78.4519038076 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
More content wanted.
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.