Claim: Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed.
Reason: It is inappropriate—and, perhaps, even cruel—to use public resources to fund the arts when people's basic needs are not being met.
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 statement calls for suspension of government funding altogether for initiatives in the field of arts at times of difficulty when people are hungry and unemployed on the basis that it is inappropriate and unfair to use public resources when people’s fundamental needs are not met. I tend to disagree with this statement for two major reasons, which will be discussed in the proceeding sections.
First, according to fundamental Economic theories, there will always be some level of poverty and unemployment in any society. In fact, economists define an optimal level of unemployment below which the country would be growing too aggressively, which is consequently coupled with many economic ramifications outside the scope of this essay. Following this logic, if the statement was to be true, there should never be any funding allocated to the arts whatsoever. An analogy to draw upon is the number of people scuffling with chronic diseases such as cancer. If I were to follow the logic of the claim made in the statement, I would find it cruel not to treat cancerous patients first before alleviating unemployment.
Second, it is very shallow of us to conveniently undermine and often ignore the significance of the arts in our societies as they have a pronounced impact in shaping our values and in general our culture. Many philosophers and thought leaders in the area of human sciences have made tremendous contributions in the course of history.
Having said that, I acknowledge some cogency in the opposing worldview. One can agree that there are different levels of urgency associated with different issues in the society. As a result, a pro-rated approach in allocating funds to different areas, which takes into account the severity of the issues is more prudent.
In conclusion, the current narrative disagreed with the claim made in the statement above for two primary reasons as detailed earlier. Although the opposing worldview was found to be valid from a certain angle, it is deemed immaterial to cause a shift in the author’s position.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, if, second, so, as to, in conclusion, in fact, in general, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 14.8657303371 40% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 33.0505617978 57% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 58.6224719101 96% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1739.0 2235.4752809 78% => OK
No of words: 336.0 442.535393258 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1755952381 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28139028586 4.55969084622 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99750551763 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 215.323595506 91% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.580357142857 0.4932671777 118% => OK
syllable_count: 549.9 704.065955056 78% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.740449438202 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.2370786517 69% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.9525963514 60.3974514979 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.214285714 118.986275619 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 23.4991977007 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5 5.21951772744 144% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.205856978697 0.243740707755 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0576502348186 0.0831039109588 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0988261160952 0.0758088955206 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103717829396 0.150359130593 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.106855182698 0.0667264976115 160% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.1392134831 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.06 12.1639044944 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.67 8.38706741573 115% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 100.480337079 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.8971910112 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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.