The speaker asserts that financial support is necessary for major cities to thrive because it is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated. I agree insofar as nothing can be done without enough funding. At the same, however, I disapprove of the idea that cultural traditions are preserved and generated primarily in cities. Sometimes small country towns take more effect on it. Besides, there are many other aspects of greater importance need to be accounted for regarding the progress of a city. Therefore, the speaker overstates the significance of financial support.
There is not always much traditional culture inside a major city. They are called "major" probably due to recent policies that happened to provide them with the opportunity to achieve an economic success. They could even be a new district just created by the government. In this case, there is no correlation between major cities and cultural traditions. On the contrary, some small towns, though with a mid-level financial state, possess many more traditions carried on from generation to generation. For example, in China, the city of Quanzhou is well-known for the diversity of cultural traditions there. It is even called the "cultural capital of East Asia". However, it is not so rich as the city of Guangzhou, which is known as one of the five major cities in China. What one can find in Guangzhou are only modern buildings, much different from the numerous ancient buildings and temples in Quanzhou. Therefore, major cities do not necessarily lead to more cultural traditions.
Besides, apart from money, even more important is the education and publicity to arouse the public's awareness so that the traditions could be preserved and generated. In my hometown, yet for a considerable income the city obtains each year, little attention is paid to the preservation of cultural relics, such as the dialect there. More and more children have lost the ability to speak it fluently, and no compulsory class has been set to teach it. Lack of the standard, the remaining who are able to speak fluently speak quite differently, which impedes the use, spread, and preservation of the dialect. Had the government encouraged us to use our dialect and educated the public to be aware of its significance, this situation would never have taken place. Therefore, money is not everything, and there are still many other aspects that should be taken into account. And many of these aspects really do not require much funding. For instance, to spread the thought, writing some posts on the newspaper and put on some posters in the community would be sufficient, which are not likely to be costly.
Admittedly, enough funding is always important, when it comes to exploiting new lands, establishing a new business or promoting the progress of technology. These are all key factors for a city to thrive. For example, in the laboratory where I am doing a research internship in my university, there is a cluster consisting of 16 advanced computers, each of them worth more than 10 thousand yuan. Considering the large number of laboratories in my university, the cost to support the research of the whole university would be very high. However, it is these laboratories that contribute to the advance of science and technology, which improve our lives and bring more money in return. On this account, the government does need to ensure the sufficient financial support.
In sum, I do admit the significance of financial support. However, I disagree with the speaker's argument, which ignores the importance of small towns and overstates the significance of funding.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 123, 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
... because it is primarily in cities that a nations cultural traditions are preserved and g...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 93, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'publics'' or 'public's'?
Suggestion: publics'; public's
...e education and publicity to arouse the publics awareness so that the traditions could ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 88, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'speakers'' or 'speaker's'?
Suggestion: speakers'; speaker's
...l support. However, I disagree with the speakers argument, which ignores the importance ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, however, if, really, regarding, so, still, therefore, well, apart from, for example, for instance, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.5258426966 169% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 33.0505617978 112% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 58.6224719101 133% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3096.0 2235.4752809 138% => OK
No of words: 600.0 442.535393258 136% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94923200384 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93352272116 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 294.0 215.323595506 137% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 988.2 704.065955056 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 11.0 4.38483146067 251% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 20.2370786517 158% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.3939854225 60.3974514979 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.75 118.986275619 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.75 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.28125 5.21951772744 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.83258426966 248% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.291405760059 0.243740707755 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0765268542602 0.0831039109588 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0954936330697 0.0758088955206 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.156561268017 0.150359130593 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.105916519722 0.0667264976115 159% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.1392134831 86% => 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: 12.65 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.21 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 140.0 100.480337079 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.