Museums preserve local heritage, international heritage or even humanity heritage. They play a pivot role in the fast integration of immigrants into their host culture. Unfortunately, governments cut down the public funding, and the grants as the donations decreased by 2%; therefore, the museums will have to become independent which means entrance fees. However, this plan is more of a curate’s egg. I strongly believe that merits of this approach which result in museum development and broadening audiences; overshadow its downsides and negative points.
The benefits of allocating admission fees are plentiful. In the first place, the museum would enjoy more independency via applying this approach. The museums can manage their own financial matters. They can relate museum staffs, curators’ salary to the amount of accumulated money from admission fees and overall donates. This way, they can develop a cooperative milieu and a sprite de corpse among their employees. Furthermore, this money could be spent to bring in new social groups to the museum. For an instant, making the interesting films and clips presenting museum’s gallery of the artifacts and sculptures or even bank of porcelains, stoneware, earthenware to wet hard-bringing audiences appetite in order for them to brace up and step in. This way museums can develop and increase the number of their audiences.
Applying admission fees for museums may affect local people or families with the less well-off. As it is mentioned before museum can act as a decent tool for people who want to get acquainted with an unfamiliar culture. For example, the museum can increase the pace of integration process to a host culture for an immigrant family. In addition, local people may find the fees unreasonable if the museum set the fees as much as the fees for tourism-spot areas. In these cases, the fee amount would not be affordable and the local authorities should provide benefits for the families with less income or allocate a specific visiting day for local people.
All in all, this approach can be constructive and self-defeating. However, considering the pluses and minuses of adopting this approach, the positive points of applying this approach outweigh the negative points.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, well, for example, in addition, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 7.85571142285 178% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1916.0 1615.20841683 119% => OK
No of words: 358.0 315.596192385 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35195530726 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34981470047 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96956672246 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 176.041082164 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575418994413 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 587.7 506.74238477 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.384769539078 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 2.52805611222 277% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 16.0721442886 124% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.7136345658 49.4020404114 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.8 106.682146367 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9 20.7667163134 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.45 7.06120827912 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => 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: 7.0 3.4128256513 205% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.233529751887 0.244688304435 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.075377349924 0.084324248473 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0582289979069 0.0667982634062 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126354872927 0.151304729494 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0875088707523 0.056905535591 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.0946893788 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 50.2224549098 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.45 12.4159519038 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 78.4519038076 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.