Education for young people is important in many countries. However, some people think that the government should spend more money on education in adult populations who cannot read and write. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, education is considered to be one of the top priorities of governments worldwide. However, there is a debate about whether investing in young or illiterate adults is not beneficial.
The argument about spending more on young people Education is clear. They have a long working life ahead and therefore invest in them more efficiently than using money to educate older people and have few years of work before them. In addition, older illiterate workers are incapable of working in areas such as finance and technology. Most are doing manual jobs in agriculture and industry. Indeed, if you ask these elderly workers on this topic, I am sure most will prefer governments that focus more on young people (their children) because in many traditional societies, the younger generation is responsible for taking care of their parents.
Although this is a strong argument, there are many reasons to believe that using some of the money on illiteracy eradication programs for working people is helpful. First, these programs are usually relatively cheap. A trained reading teacher can educate hundreds of illiterate people using only basic materials. Second, when a person is illiterate, it does not only affect their employment situation. People today need to be able to read for bank accounts, claim government benefits and pay their bills. Moreover, let's not forget that much of the information is still printed, despite the fact that we live in an age of video on TV and YouTube.
In short, the argument is that the government should spend more on young people instead of illiterate older people who aren't watertight. There are obvious benefits to spending more on adult literacy programs. Although I agree that spending more on young people than literate adults, this should not be forgotten and even a little funding can make a big difference.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 82, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
... are many reasons to believe that using some of the money on illiteracy eradication program...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 120, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
... instead of illiterate older people who arent watertight. There are obvious benefits ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, moreover, second, so, still, therefore, in addition, in short, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 24.0651302605 96% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 41.998997996 86% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1557.0 1615.20841683 96% => OK
No of words: 303.0 315.596192385 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13861386139 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69642821012 2.80592935109 96% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 176.041082164 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.580858085809 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 497.7 506.74238477 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.0974051224 49.4020404114 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.3125 106.682146367 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9375 20.7667163134 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.625 7.06120827912 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.356205690037 0.244688304435 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106728385961 0.084324248473 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0869179757946 0.0667982634062 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.202367883142 0.151304729494 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0646567274499 0.056905535591 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.0946893788 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 50.2224549098 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.4159519038 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.58950901804 101% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 78.4519038076 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.