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.
From Athens to our contemporary world, major cities have always been windows through which people convey and perceive the main characteristics of societies. While it is true that some cities are predominantly economic and financial centers, and not the ideal lens with which to view the wont of a nation, they have a critical role to play in preservation of ethos for two reasons 1) because of their historical and cultural legacy, 2) they act as bulwarks for the whole country. The government cannot, however, be absolved of its responsibility simply by concentrating on major cities.
Major cities are benchmark in education, culture, politics. Most of the best universities, the greatest museums or the congresses are sheltered within these and set the tempo of the cultural life of countries. Despite the undeniable common feature of most metropolises i.e cosmopolitanism, world cities like Roma, Paris or New Delhi have a distinct cultural heritage, the main reason of them rising to prominence and being known for. Maintaining these rich cultural grounds requires money, and while there are other sources as patrons, incomes from tourism - the primary source of funding remains to be the government.
Opponents may argue that true values and traditions get less diluted in small cities than in the bigger. One cannot, though, ignore the incapability of localities to attract private investors, as most artisans and provincial facilities are viewed as languishing. The attractiveness of major cities, funded by the state, can be a springboard to label a country as competitive and pleasant at a world stage. Increasing tourism, for instance, resulting in public taxes and proceeds might be a means for the government to fuel a prosperous economy, a part of which might be allocated to villages. By ensuring that their major cities receive the needed financial support, states indirectly make fundraise to aid back burner zones in preserving and generating their local traditions.
It is also crucial to note that in large societies that have an eclectic culture, traditions and habits vary from one region to another. Many speak different languages, rely on varied businesses to make a living or do not belong to the same ethnicities. In such cases, capitals of regions act as custodians of the heritage's preservation and their funding is essential to protect the core of a society, which subsumes plethora of aspects. This exposure would also enable to decentralize the prevalent power of every biggest city of a country, leading to a more balanced cultural habitus between all the nations' stakeholders.
There is, however, a worrying fallout regarding the galore funding of major cities that needs to be taken into consideration. Significant gaps arise between big and smaller cities as the later are often neglected. Emblematic museums, stadiums and castles fall into ruins due to lack of means, denoting a sheer apathy from the ruling parties. Indeed, these forgotten areas bear the brunt of rulers finding wide merits in the funds of major cities, mainly for these are synonymous with potential personal interests. The financial support required by major cities should not impinge upon the subsidies of rural areas, nor can the importance of their bucolic beauty and essence be undermined.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 315, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'heritages'' or 'heritage's'?
Suggestion: heritages'; heritage's
...als of regions act as custodians of the heritages preservation and their funding is essen...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, may, regarding, so, then, while, for instance, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 58.6224719101 131% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2781.0 2235.4752809 124% => OK
No of words: 528.0 442.535393258 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26704545455 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79356345386 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91102422811 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 315.0 215.323595506 146% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.596590909091 0.4932671777 121% => OK
syllable_count: 877.5 704.065955056 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.0348364526 60.3974514979 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.428571429 118.986275619 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1428571429 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.61904761905 5.21951772744 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.310841262942 0.243740707755 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0801842131144 0.0831039109588 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0825504605856 0.0758088955206 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.160132296471 0.150359130593 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0499221201666 0.0667264976115 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.1392134831 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.8420337079 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.1639044944 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.32 8.38706741573 123% => OK
difficult_words: 182.0 100.480337079 181% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.