Claim: Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive.
Reason: It is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated.
Obviously, funding in order to support cities and increasing city’s condition is a good choice. Despite this fact, there is a controversial question that, is this a good way for preserve and protect countries tradition or not. In my opinion, the claim is totally true but the reason has problems in some cases. The reason to substantiate my view point are explored in the following.
To begin with, major cities aren’t always the place that receiving to the countries traditions or pure culture is easily possible. To put in the other hand, maybe small cities or rural areas in each countries are the better places for learning new things about the countries. It is crystal clear, major cities because of using technology and modern utensils are changing promptly and this event has influenced on city’s tradition and city’s culture. To easily perceive these words, consider Tehran, which is one of the most important cities in Iran. If you want to study ceremony of Iran history, Tehran isn’t a good suggestion to start. Tehran is one of the main cities in Iran but is a low-level zone in preserving Iranian culture. (10)
Furthermore, preparing budget isn’t strong enough to support city for improving and thriving. To be specific, money are very important to cultivate towns but aren’t everything and we should consider that improving depends on a lot of cause such as manager, people and ability. Surely, the first and foremost role in thriving a city is the budget but what happen, if not merit person try to manage that money? Let suppose an example to drive this fact home, everyone knows Iran as a rich country because of its resources, but the people in that country involve with a lot of problems, and it’s due to terrible managing which leads to steal money by some powerful guy.
Without any shadow of doubt, spending money has its own positive effects on providing facilities for a town. It is true that subsidizing by government in right places would cut problems in a way of preserving and generating culture. Under such a circumstance the major cities which has been chosen by scientific institutes can protect the culture and country history and try to introduce that to other countries. To make clear my point of view, we can regard Qatar as a good instance to illustrate how investing money in a right regions can improve major cities also preserve culture, history and precedent.
In conclusion, I believe solely spending money isn’t enough for improving and protecting culture. Since major cities aren’t necessarily the proper places for protecting culture also money aren’t everything and improving depends on a lot of factors. However, we have to always consider the effects of spending money to solve problems easier.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 242, Rule ID: OF_CAUSE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'of course' (=naturally)?
Suggestion: of course
...onsider that improving depends on a lot of cause such as manager, people and ability. Su...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 530, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'region'?
Suggestion: region
...lustrate how investing money in a right regions can improve major cities also preserve ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, in conclusion, such as, in my opinion, in some cases, it is true, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.4196629213 40% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 14.8657303371 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 33.0505617978 76% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 58.6224719101 106% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2340.0 2235.4752809 105% => OK
No of words: 461.0 442.535393258 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07592190889 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63367139033 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75682716007 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 215.323595506 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507592190889 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 736.2 704.065955056 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.38483146067 251% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.2204615485 60.3974514979 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.428571429 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9523809524 23.4991977007 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.28571428571 5.21951772744 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.211724628436 0.243740707755 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0701105295202 0.0831039109588 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0612741303572 0.0758088955206 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124192112281 0.150359130593 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.059518692497 0.0667264976115 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.1392134831 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.1639044944 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 Out of 6
---------------------
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.