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 statement claims that governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. However, I firmly disagree with this statement. I shall elaborate my idea in the following essay.
To begin with, the governments need to consider what has contributed the immediate problems and what other problem will them bring on us. Without figuring out the essence of a problem, resolving an immediate problem seems to be endless. For example, there was a river called Love River in Taiwan which was notoriously renown for its dirty water. The government had done a lot to clean its water, such as introducing water purifier near the upper steam and collecting garbage under the water periodically. However, all of these effort appeared to be in vain. The water still looked dirty once for a while. In the end, the government found the major reason for its dirtiness: it was the soil composition that reacted to the water and therefore contributed the foggy-looking appearance. The government eventually sought a technological way in using environmentally friendly artificial compound to neutralize the chemical under the water. After that, the Love River became cleaner.
Additionally, the government should realize it is financially burdened to focus on solving the immediate problems of today, especially the government cannot deal with it once at a time. For example, in New York City the government managed to alleviate the traffic issue. There were too many automobiles reportedly so the traffic was horrible during rush hours. The government decided to build more parking lot for drivers so they thought there wouldn’t be so many cars on street at the same time. However, what they did not realize was that an extra space for cars actually encourage people to drive. After a few months of the policy, the government found that not only did the number of drivers not decline, but also the expensive cost for building parking lots have burden their budget.
Admittedly, some may argue that handling immediate problems is critical since they are affecting our lives right now and the government should focus on them instead of problems that potentially have impact on our lives. For example, poverty is an important issue and the government really need to take it seriously. There are some policies helping the poor, such as tuition support for people to receive education, job affairs only exclusive people under poverty line and so on. However, problems like poverty cannot be eliminated if the governments only provide temporary assistance.
To sum up, the governments should not focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. As mentioned above, I firmly disagree with the statement.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 522, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this effort' or 'these efforts'?
Suggestion: this effort; these efforts
...the water periodically. However, all of these effort appeared to be in vain. The water still...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, look, may, really, so, still, therefore, while, for example, such as, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 58.6224719101 104% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2393.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 461.0 442.535393258 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19088937093 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63367139033 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78256538757 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 215.323595506 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509761388286 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 754.2 704.065955056 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.7748866623 60.3974514979 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.7083333333 118.986275619 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2083333333 23.4991977007 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.33333333333 5.21951772744 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 5.13820224719 292% => 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: 0.303949274199 0.243740707755 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0912692294191 0.0831039109588 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.148336147137 0.0758088955206 196% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.249979105193 0.150359130593 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.171634077386 0.0667264976115 257% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.1392134831 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 100.480337079 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.