Many governments in the world spend large amounts of money on art, which helps to improve the quality of people’s lives. However, governments should spend money on other things rather than art. Do you agree or disagree?
Societies with a heritage in the ‘arts’ have long been considered culturally sophisticated and advanced. However, with the recent financial crisis this lavishness and expense should be questioned. Tax-payers’ money has to be spent practically rather than on cultural endeavours. Firstly, not everyone in society appreciates art, and, secondly, employment should take precedence.
Art can bring quality into one’s life if you are interested. In society, art-lovers are typically in the minority, and other activities, such as sport, are more popular. Take football, for example. Across the globe it is obvious that there are more people watching matches in stadiums than looking at sculptures or paintings. This fact shows that it is impossible for art to bring quality into a community if galleries hold little interest for the people.
Secondly, the resources diverted to such projects come from the public and should be spent in a way that benefits them. Commissioning or purchasing art is an insult to tax-payers who endure high unemployment, such as those in Newcastle, UK. This city suffers from historically high unemployment, yet the council commissioned a large sculpture called ‘The Angel of the North’. Financing a job creation project would undoubtedly have been more practical for the local community.
To conclude, I believe that it is an untrue to assert that art brings quality into one’s life and I agree that the money should be spent elsewhere. This is because art expenditure only benefits a small minority and the expense involved should benefit the majority. Ideally in the future, governments will recognise that the quality of a person’s life derives from a decent opportunity in life, not a sculpture.
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'firstly', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'as to', 'for example', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.25748502994 0.247107183377 104% => OK
Verbs: 0.14371257485 0.155533422707 92% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0778443113772 0.0946595960268 82% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0479041916168 0.0501214627716 96% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0209580838323 0.0437548338989 48% => OK
Prepositions: 0.119760479042 0.122226691241 98% => OK
Participles: 0.0449101796407 0.0403226058552 111% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.16995332477 2.80594681477 113% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0179640718563 0.0326793684256 55% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.00163938923432 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0958083832335 0.0861772015684 111% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0239520958084 0.021408717616 112% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00299401197605 0.011925033212 25% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1771.0 1933.35771543 92% => OK
No of words: 274.0 316.048096192 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.46350364964 6.12580529183 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0685311056 4.20517956788 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.412408759124 0.374742101984 110% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.339416058394 0.28420135186 119% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.266423357664 0.203846283523 131% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.200729927007 0.137316102897 146% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16995332477 2.80594681477 113% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 176.037074148 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.609489051095 0.56093040696 109% => OK
Word variations: 66.4006866332 60.7387585426 109% => OK
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0891783567 99% => OK
Sentence length: 17.125 20.7743622355 82% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.0930433337 49.517814964 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.6875 127.492653851 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.125 20.7743622355 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.6875 0.814263465372 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38877755511 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.99599198397 0% => OK
Readability: 51.0666058394 49.1944974215 104% => OK
Elegance: 1.98591549296 1.69124875643 117% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.332880573136 0.332605444948 100% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0650401616048 0.102741220458 63% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0497567531065 0.0668466124924 74% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.4820340169 0.534860350844 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.114217494004 0.148594505496 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11250310988 0.134430193775 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0495427502078 0.0742795772207 67% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.260631348597 0.324371583561 80% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.09044463026 0.0638462369009 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.212305245991 0.228012699653 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0284992084971 0.058150111329 49% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.68436873747 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.41683366733 88% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 5.90881763527 102% => OK
Negative topic words: 1.0 2.5751503006 39% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 1.9629258517 102% => OK
Total topic words: 9.0 10.4468937876 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.