Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
The prompt suggests that the government should focus on immediate problems rather than trying to solve anticipated problems of the future. While I agree that it is important to address immediate problems, I believe is equally important that the government also devotes its focus on the anticipation and prevention of future. In my opinion, solely focusing on immediate problems may be detrimental for the long-term preservation of the country.
Indeed, adopting this recommendation would be advantageous in the present time. For instance, poverty and starvation within the homeless population is a persistent problem present throughout the world. Every year, millions of people are forced to live on the streets for various reasons and often receive little support from the government. Moreover, many homeless individual's die from starvation. Without assistance, the prevalence of poverty will only continue to worsen. That being said, the government has the power to significantly lessen the serverity of poverty, an immediate problem of today. For example, they can enforce laws that require restaurants to provide take-out and grocery stores to provide essential hygiene products, such as shampoo, conditioner, body wash, toothpaste, and tooth brushes. This example illustrates the power in which the government holds to solve immediate problems, which would greatly assist those currently in need. Many would argue that this is more rational than solving anticipated problems that are not currently affecting anyone's quality of life.
However, while the example above may alleviate the prevalence of poverty, the government's decisions indirectly contributes to climate change. The decision mentioned above provides the less fortunate with basic needs. However, it also increases the use of plastic products. The plastic materials contained in take-out containers and bottles are unrecyclable and contribute to global warming. While poverty is an important issue that must be dealt with, research suggests that the effects of climate change will be detrimental to all species on the Earth. In other words, while the government is effectively solving immediate problems, they are contributing to an outcome that may affect the greater population. Rather than solely focusing on the immediate problem of poverty, they should develop a plan that also accounts for the future. For instance, the government could implementing a program that provides the homeless population with jobs and rehabilitation. This approach would provide individual's an opportunity for a second chance; allowing them to make a steady income and identify and solve the underlying factor's that contributed to their homelessness. In addition, the immaterial support provided by the government contributes less to global warming, as they are not simply providing a mass distribution of products. This example illustrates the importance of accounting for the future while solving immediate problems, as solely focusing on the current may greatly affect the future.
There are many factors to account for when discussing such a complex topic. While solving immediate problems should be a priority for the government, anticipating and accounting for future problems is critical for the long-term preservation of our planet. That being said, my opinion remains that the government should focus on solving both immediate and future problems.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1094, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ntly affecting anyones quality of life. However, while the example above may all...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 873, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'implement'
Suggestion: implement
...ure. For instance, the government could implementing a program that provides the homeless po...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 373, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ing both immediate and future problems.
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, while, for example, for instance, in addition, such as, in my opinion, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 58.6224719101 101% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 12.9106741573 225% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2907.0 2235.4752809 130% => OK
No of words: 512.0 442.535393258 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.677734375 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75682846001 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95685773413 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 243.0 215.323595506 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.474609375 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 902.7 704.065955056 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.4473537888 60.3974514979 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.807692308 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6923076923 23.4991977007 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.23076923077 5.21951772744 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 5.13820224719 272% => Less 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: 0.290564570612 0.243740707755 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0850190857085 0.0831039109588 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0980388323525 0.0758088955206 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.214353398197 0.150359130593 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0677121527904 0.0667264976115 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 48.8420337079 72% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.66 12.1639044944 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.08 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 146.0 100.480337079 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.