Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.
Governments face multiple problems at the same time. And the sequence in which these problems are to be solved is not an inconsequential one. The statement provided suggests that government should solve immediate problems rather than the future ones. I agree with this statement to some extent and argue that while government should solve immediate problems in most cases, this might not be the best course of action in some cases.
To begin with, not solving an ongoing problem will result in the people losing confidence on the government. When a government comes into power, its first steps should be to solve the problems that are currently haunting the country’s people. For example, country A has a problem of not having sufficient drinking water and at the same time researchers forecast that there will be an economic meltdown in the next 20 years. If country A ignored the current problem and focused on solving an anticipated one, it would have ignored the current suffering of the people. The people will only see their current problems, not the ones they might face in the future. This would lead the people to lose trust in their government. So, the government should solve the most recent problems to pacify the people and then move on to the complex future problems. This would show the people that their government is working hard to solve all their problems.
Furthermore, there’s a probability that this government might not be in power when the prescient problem had finally occurred, and the new government had completely ignored the previous government’s course of action. Let’s take the previous example of country into account one more time. The government had focused on the future economic problem and ignored the current water problem. This resulted in the people picking a new government. The new government scrapped the previous government’s plan and started a new one. The entirety of government’s work would have been nothing more than a waste of time and resources.
Moreover, the circumstances of today will not be similar to the ones of the future. A different circumstance would require a different approach. There’s no way to predict the future situation. The solution to the problem may be an accurate one for the current state of affairs, but an erroneous one for the future. The probability of the current solution of a future problem to be adaptive to all possible conditions is extremely low. So, it is not advisable to solve future problems since it would most definitely require modification to adjust the conditions.
However, this not always the case. A common example of this is climate change. The governments of the world knew about this problem and the potential dangers of it since 1950s. But they decided to ignore it thinking it’s a problem of the future. This had led to irreversible melting of polar ice caps and near extinction of a lot of species. This problem could have easily been avoided if necessary steps had been taken at that time. But this is just an anomaly. A tangential event cannot be used to nullify a statement. So, in conclusion, it can be said that government should be more focused in solving the current problems instead of future ones.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, so, then, while, for example, in conclusion, in most cases, in some cases, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.4196629213 177% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 33.0505617978 109% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 58.6224719101 109% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 12.9106741573 186% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2702.0 2235.4752809 121% => OK
No of words: 541.0 442.535393258 122% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99445471349 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82280071112 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74283546001 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.417744916821 0.4932671777 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 832.5 704.065955056 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 13.0 4.99550561798 260% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 33.0 20.2370786517 163% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 23.0359550562 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.7860545581 60.3974514979 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.8787878788 118.986275619 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.3939393939 23.4991977007 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.54545454545 5.21951772744 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 10.2758426966 29% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 21.0 5.13820224719 409% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.413990836449 0.243740707755 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.114977033563 0.0831039109588 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.120950142584 0.0758088955206 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.260267280169 0.150359130593 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.100258351876 0.0667264976115 150% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.3 14.1392134831 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 48.8420337079 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 12.1743820225 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 12.1639044944 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.64 8.38706741573 91% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 100.480337079 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.2143820225 75% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.