It is a controversial statement that governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. I believe the answer varies according to each nation’s status, and that the government should cautiously make decisions after assessing the pros and cons of each of their decisions. I would like to use the following paragraphs to elucidate my viewpoints.
First of all, solving the immediate problems is undoubtedly a top priority especially for the countries that are in crisis, such as wars, starvation, and deadly infectious diseases. The reasons being that these problems are not only urgent, but also relating to the fundamental basis of a country’s well-being. If not solved properly and urgently, the whole country can basically fall apart. Take President Lincoln for example, who took place while the United States was in civil war. He took his priority in preserving the Union, so much so he was even willing to put emancipation to a second place. Without his rightful decision, the Union would split and there would be no place or opportunity for emancipation. A more recent example will be the countries in West Africa, who have been fighting for starvation, HIV-aids, and Ebola for the past few years, any of the listed three problems has taken thousands of lives. Just image being there, where you cannot even feed yourself and is afraid that you could contact a deadly disease at any time, what is left in your mind would not be the future, but to make through the current situation.
On the other hand, I agree that the countries that are relatively peaceful and stable need to focus more on anticipated problems. A government needs to have a clear vision and an organized plan for the country to stay prosperous in a long-run. Take Japan for example, by understanding clearly that the country is prone to natural disasters due to its geographical location, the country had implemented clear measures to respond to such conditions. Therefore, when the 8.9 grade earthquake happened in 2011, the public responded fast and the local hospitals were able to transform to a triage centers within 2 hours, which helped to save numerous lives. Another example will be the many countries’ attempts to explore new energy sources in responding to the energy depletion problem in the foreseeable future, such as making use of solar and hydroelectric power. Overall, there left many anticipated problems that can hopefully be avoided only if we take a serious consideration now, such as preserving the energy, environment and species.
To sum up, I believe that government should properly assess the country’s situation and make the rightful decision for its citizens. If a nation has pressing issues yet the government is focusing on some other anticipated problems, the result can be disastrous. Just take a look at North Korea, while the government was busy developing nuclear power for chances of war in the future, numerous innocent citizens were starving to death. Therefore, as a conclusion, I would like to reiterate my points that the government should focus on solving the immediate problems if they have altered the basis of the nation, such as war, disease and starvation; on the other hand, a strong and peaceful nation should try to eradicate future problems in order to maximize social utility.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 233, Rule ID: DT_JJ_NO_NOUN[1]
Message: Probably a noun is missing in this part of the sentence.
...n for the country to stay prosperous in a long-run. Take Japan for example, by understandi...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, look, second, so, therefore, well, while, for example, such as, first of all, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 58.6224719101 111% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2860.0 2235.4752809 128% => OK
No of words: 560.0 442.535393258 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10714285714 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.8645985582 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89032296409 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 297.0 215.323595506 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530357142857 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 889.2 704.065955056 126% => 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: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.3894483554 60.3974514979 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.19047619 118.986275619 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.6666666667 23.4991977007 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.09523809524 5.21951772744 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
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: 0.240155802299 0.243740707755 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0717869111762 0.0831039109588 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112443126512 0.0758088955206 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168358742722 0.150359130593 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0863501052738 0.0667264976115 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.1392134831 113% => 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: 12.65 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.04 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 146.0 100.480337079 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => 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: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.