Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future
It’s a famous quote that people are more afraid of the things that they can’t see compared to what lies in front of them. Following the ideology of this quote, many people opine that instead of focussing on present issues and ordeals, the government must solve problems that haven’t even arrived and lay plans for the same. However, if you ask me I would any day choose present over the future. Present has two meanings, the present tense and a gift. I really think every day we receive the present of present, and we must toil hard to make use of it. Future lies on foundation of today and we would reap what we have sown. Similarly, if the government of a country is focussed on resolving the ongoing predicaments and crisis, definitely in the near future, its citizens are going to enjoy the fruitful results. To elucidate the stance better consider a country like India. With more than a hundred and thirty-five crore population, it ranks the 2nd most populous country in the world. Difficult times are not something new to this country. Since Independence, many governments have governed the function of this beautiful country, and yet none has compromised the present to the future. For instance, the first prime minister of the country, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, had a vision of making India a global Market. However, he knew this would affect the living of millions of artisans and vendors, who simply did not had resources to compete with the international market. He did introduce the policy of globalization, which was of much importance for the country but only after he realised, the local market has stood up on his own feet and ready to compete. Recently there have been instances that prove, compromising the present to achieve future goals could lead to acrimonious repercussions. On 8th November 2016, the government of India suddenly decided to ban the old currency notes with the noble intent to culminate black money. Despite such a good will, the policy failed to take off with full force and effect. The demonetization policy aimed at scotching the black market however, it did not take into consideration, the current scenario in the country. There was no proper plan on how the new currency notes would be injected into the system and how the insolvency arising in the market could be tackled. The population indigenous to the most interior parts of the country suffered the most. Already, these people are devoid of cash, and now with the banning of old notes they faced a huge conundrum. The policy is still a highly contentious and debatable subject and the opposition till today attacks the government over it. Although I agree, we can’t leave the future in the dark. There must be some plan for the future. Yes, the answer to that is sustainable development and thinking. It says that “you must have resources for the future but not at the cost of devoiding the present with it”. I firmly believe, the need of the hour is to incorporate the thought with the governance ideologies.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 371, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to present'
Suggestion: to present
...r, if you ask me I would any day choose present over the future. Present has two meanin...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 1418, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'have'
Suggestion: have
...rtisans and vendors, who simply did not had resources to compete with the internati...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, really, similarly, so, still, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 58.6224719101 118% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2505.0 2235.4752809 112% => OK
No of words: 517.0 442.535393258 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84526112186 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.76839952204 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6357242534 2.79657885939 94% => OK
Unique words: 277.0 215.323595506 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535783365571 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 784.8 704.065955056 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 12.0 4.99550561798 240% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.9013421932 60.3974514979 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.7777777778 118.986275619 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1481481481 23.4991977007 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.48148148148 5.21951772744 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 1.0 4.97078651685 20% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0950319253711 0.243740707755 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0223066170119 0.0831039109588 27% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0342343815277 0.0758088955206 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0950319253711 0.150359130593 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0667264976115 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 14.1392134831 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.8420337079 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.85 12.1639044944 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 100.480337079 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
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.