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.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
The author claims that it is incumbent upon government to provide as much money as major cities need to help them in development and triumphant. To support this claim, the author misleadingly relies on the fact that major cities are the first appropriate place to keep the cultural traditions of a nature safe and help their growth. However, as far as I am concerned, the author fails to bring convincing reasons.
On the one hand, allocating huge budget on major cities contributes to prosperity of that city in various fields such as political, economic, life standard and etc. It is immediately apparent that, financial support is mostly received by major cities such as capitals, metropolitan cities or cosmopolitan cities. The significant reason of this policy may lie behind the fact that major cities are the representative of a country that the important political and economic decisions are made there. For instance, the building of parliament or numerous vital organizations of a government are built in capitals which justifies the need of these cities of financial support. Additionally, major cities are the first target of tourists and visitors from all over the world where one nation’s culture is exhibited. Therefore, spending money on preserving major cities, keeping them clean, developing them and redecorating them lead to an acceptable place to demonstrate culture of a country.
On the other hand, when major cities receive financial support, it is possible that the allocated budget decreases in rural areas or suburbs. This negative correlation causes an irredeemable gap between life standard of the countryside and major cities that may force people to migrate from rural areas to major cities. This trend of movement may create the opportunity of having higher life standard for migrated rural people, but it brings further side effects such as the unsustainable growth of population and uncontrolled urban growth. Following that, when is replete with people who need housing, food and public services, government needs to allocate even more money on wresting control of the situation and the needs and wants of this huge population. All of these consequences together, not only may prevent preserving cultural traditions, but also creates a chaos and out of control situation in the society and cultural situation of the city.
Even if the money and support of the government help the major cities to thrive, the mentioned reason for this policy is fallacious. The author needs to provide convincing evidence regarding the relationship of triumph in major cities and a nation’s cultural tradition conservation. The fact that rural areas are rife with cultural traditions, dances, folk music, and fables is apparently obvious. However, the majority of rural areas are deprived of financial support to preserve their traditions. If the author seeks to make the argument credible, he should establish concrete reasons to answer the question that how the cities are able to maintain the traditions better than rural areas.
To conclude, the author needs to provide sufficient reasons to prove that how the major cities can efficiently improve and keep the cultural traditions of a nation to support the claim’s soundness. Otherwise, allocating huge money on major cities may incur huge loss on government since the claim is unreliable and maybe the cities fail to preserve the culture.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 157, Rule ID: AND_ETC[1]
Message: Use simply 'etc.'.
Suggestion: etc.
...h as political, economic, life standard and etc. It is immediately apparent that, financ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, first, however, if, may, regarding, so, therefore, as to, for instance, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 58.6224719101 123% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2888.0 2235.4752809 129% => OK
No of words: 544.0 442.535393258 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30882352941 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82947280553 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88126245503 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 255.0 215.323595506 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46875 0.4932671777 95% => OK
syllable_count: 907.2 704.065955056 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => 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: 35.684431967 60.3974514979 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 137.523809524 118.986275619 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.9047619048 23.4991977007 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.7619047619 5.21951772744 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => 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: 0.387629975713 0.243740707755 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.132856674526 0.0831039109588 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0787191796323 0.0758088955206 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.253980554421 0.150359130593 169% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0689461416552 0.0667264976115 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 14.1392134831 117% => 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: 13.81 12.1639044944 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 100.480337079 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.