Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in
order to thrive, because it is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved
and generated.
It is one of the major issues of contention due to the past few years. The author claims that the major cities should receive more financial support to preserve the traditional cultural and generated. However, I personally not so agree with this view the author.
Firstly, the modern world is developing and major, small cities are also growing so fast. Major cities which is one of the alluring place for the people of the outside city for the search for a better job and career. Cities are the place where diverse cultural people are met. For instance, India's major cities like Mumbai, Chennai are the most diverse place where all religious people are live. Thus, It is not a prudent notion for government to support with financial to thrive the national cultural tradition.
Secondly, small cities or villages are where all kind of cultural tradition celebrated by the inhabitant. They really are preserved the diverse tradition but lack of financial support many of the tradition are now diminishing. For example, one of the popular tradition is flying Kyte during the Bissokorma worship. But, most of the village people are so poor in our country that they cannot bear afford. So, this type of tradition is now declining.
However, most of the industry, office, major business have in the city and growing so fast that the development of the country depends on the city. Moreover, better education facility is also a major factor for developing the city. Thus, I also agree with the author statement because if we provide more support in the education system where we can implant the cultural tradition among the student. These students our future and they preserve our culture.
Summing up, major cities also require support for cultural support because of it the developing factor of the country. But, small town and village need major support for the preservation of the tradition.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, really, second, secondly, so, thus, for example, for instance, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 33.0505617978 57% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 58.6224719101 56% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1586.0 2235.4752809 71% => OK
No of words: 316.0 442.535393258 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01898734177 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 4.55969084622 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49155760869 2.79657885939 89% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 215.323595506 68% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.465189873418 0.4932671777 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 505.8 704.065955056 72% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.38483146067 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 23.0359550562 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.0161835808 60.3974514979 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 83.4736842105 118.986275619 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.6315789474 23.4991977007 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.31578947368 5.21951772744 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.326270028022 0.243740707755 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108109311269 0.0831039109588 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0845593735599 0.0758088955206 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.196476479596 0.150359130593 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0393818559795 0.0667264976115 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.5 14.1392134831 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.8420337079 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.54 12.1639044944 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.68 8.38706741573 92% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 100.480337079 65% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 11.8971910112 55% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.2143820225 75% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => 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.