The author makes a claim saying that financial support in major cities will result in the preservation and generation of cultural traditions. The author is naive in his thinking. His focus is on the major cities' improvement, completely keeping the other cities out of the picture. I disagree with the claim putforth by the author. Does the economic and infrastructural development of a country rest only on the progress of major cities? Well, the answer is a stern no.
Regarding a country's economic and financial conditions, we can say that minor cities, which include the rural areas are in a desparate need of financial support. For instance, in India, the trend is as follows: the richer cities get richer whereas the cities manifested with poverty become more impecunious. The logic behind this situation is the belief the governments hold that investing more money in major cities is crucial. This notion in the eyes of the government will never take us close to the development of a country.
Quoting the reason, it says that financial support in major cities will be a better option as a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated. Going back to our roots of history and culture, we can attribute the birth of our cultural traditions to the rural areas. For example, the culture of 'Janapada', which is story telling through songs in India was born in the rural areas. Urban areas might have skyscrapers but the cultural traditions and customs trace back their origin to the villages. Hence, this reason mentioned in the argument is not valid and is inherently flawed.
Furthermore, the villages or the minor cities are in need of monetary support. Investing in the urban areas will definitely result in the burgeoning of urban areas but what about the progress of the country? Indeed, the overall progress of the country which is dependent on the major cities as well as the minor cities is at a stagnant stage. The government's notion to provide pecuniary support to the major cities to help them flourish might be a short-term vision for the development of a country. The long-term vision would be providing financial support to all the cities to see the country flourish. Indeed, that is a victory.
Definitely, investing in major cities can help a country to thrive because they are the 'hubs' of the country. Major cities are the home for IT professionals or academic universities. On the contrast, minor cities have rich cultural heritage still intact unlike the whitewash of the cultural traditions in the technology manifested major cities. Investing financially on minor cities and preserving the heritage sites will result in a large number of tourists, leading to the higher per capita income of a nation.
Therefore, the government, who has the power to improve the conditions of a nation financially and economically should not parochially think that only the major cities should thrive. Secondly, the reason stated does not strengthen the claim and is filled with loopholes as mentioned above.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 206, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'cities'' or 'city's'?
Suggestion: cities'; city's
...his thinking. His focus is on the major cities improvement, completely keeping the oth...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 95, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a nation' or simply 'nations'?
Suggestion: a nation; nations
...major cities will be a better option as a nations cultural traditions are preserved and g...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 348, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'governments'' or 'government's'?
Suggestion: governments'; government's
...inor cities is at a stagnant stage. The governments notion to provide pecuniary support to ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 432, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...rving the heritage sites will result in a large number of tourists, leading to the higher per cap...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, hence, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, well, whereas, for example, for instance, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 58.6224719101 109% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2541.0 2235.4752809 114% => OK
No of words: 501.0 442.535393258 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07185628743 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73107062784 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77916714589 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.453093812375 0.4932671777 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 793.8 704.065955056 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 12.0 4.99550561798 240% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.635725137 60.3974514979 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.1111111111 118.986275619 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5555555556 23.4991977007 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11111111111 5.21951772744 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.416894277799 0.243740707755 171% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11024232495 0.0831039109588 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0869348776305 0.0758088955206 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.221426541432 0.150359130593 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0384104986379 0.0667264976115 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.1392134831 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.8420337079 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.1639044944 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 100.480337079 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.