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 claim and the reason provided by author of the issue perfectly resonates with my own thought process and I agree with it. Always between arts and hunger, hunger wins, because standing outside the heritage building and pondering over its byzantine architecture and praising the beauty of medivial engineering, won't fill your stomach. There has always been a debate about, wether arts is important againts every other thing, and often the people who support arts over other things like basic needs, have never experienced poverty.
We cannot expect the government of country like Africa, which is totaly subsumed by poverty, which neither have enough funding to feed the poor nor they have a proper infrastructre for the masses, to invest their GDP in maintaining, an ancestral architecture and historical heritage. The country where people a die of hunger is extremely idiotic to even have a debate about the importance of architecture over the basic needs. Obviously arts is important, it the art by which the country is known it is countrys identity, may it be Pryamids of Egypt or even Taj Mahal of India or another historical heritage of any country.
But giving arts precedence over satisfying of basic needs is not fair and even cruel. Also this doesn't mean that the government should not use any of public funds in maintaining these historical heritage. Suspending the funds as mentioned in the claim will be harsher. Instead the government should come out with the solution or policy, where in it should first allocated the buget for covering basic need and improving infrastructure and then investing the reamaining part of the funds in maintainig for maintain the architectural heritage.
In conclusion the government, instead of suspending funding, should come up with some
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 127, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[1]
Message: The adverb 'Always' is usually not used at the beginning of a sentence.
...wn thought process and I agree with it. Always between arts and hunger, hunger wins, b...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 33, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...untry. But giving arts precedence over satisfying of basic needs is not fair an...
^^
Line 3, column 88, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...basic needs is not fair and even cruel. Also this doesnt mean that the government sh...
^^^^
Line 3, column 98, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...s is not fair and even cruel. Also this doesnt mean that the government should not use...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 271, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Instead,
...mentioned in the claim will be harsher. Instead the government should come out with the...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, may, so, then, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.5258426966 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 33.0505617978 45% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 58.6224719101 68% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1503.0 2235.4752809 67% => OK
No of words: 291.0 442.535393258 66% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16494845361 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13022058845 4.55969084622 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75940951642 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 215.323595506 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.594501718213 0.4932671777 121% => OK
syllable_count: 468.0 704.065955056 66% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.740449438202 135% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 20.2370786517 54% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.6662374258 60.3974514979 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.636363636 118.986275619 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4545454545 23.4991977007 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.18181818182 5.21951772744 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => 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: 0.263211692434 0.243740707755 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100607054406 0.0831039109588 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0508070157563 0.0758088955206 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144727561857 0.150359130593 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0935880511889 0.0667264976115 140% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.1392134831 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.1639044944 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 100.480337079 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.