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.
In all times every government has been facing both with local and global problems, requiring immediate attention. Some issues faced by nation are quite easy to resolve without serious consequences. However, resolution of more serious problems requires an assiduous consideration of all the consequencies that might follow. Therefore, I strongly believe while the governments should promptly address the immediate problems, I believe that the long term consequences and possible problems must be taken into account.
Every developing nation faces a problem of increasing overall wellness of its citizens by fighting poverty and promoting education. This fight can take different forms, but the general trend is converting a rural country into industrial. The history knows multitude of examples when such a conversion had deleterious effects for surrounding areas, leading to their devastation and extermination of ingenious flora and fauna. Tak for example China in mid 50-th after Cultural Revolution. One of the ideas of chairman Mao is quickly industrialize the country, which lead to migration of millions of people to urban areas. This step resulted in degeneration of rural countryside, and a famine and poverty as a consequence. While Mao's ideas came true and nowadays China is a heavy industrialized country, its government still miopic about future possible future problems as poor ecology, health problems within population and depletion of natural resources.
Quite shortsided attitude while planning long-term goals can also lead to lost of cultural heritage of our society. The plethora of examples are found in history. For example, promoting a newly accepted religion, early christian monarchs overlooked destroying the ancient culture by zealots of a christian church, thus losing cultural masterpieces and scientific records accumulated for centuries. Or, nowadays European governments adopting multiculturalism and tolerance as a national policy often overlook the possibility that this kind of approach might endanger local cultures. The local traditions of different european countries and even languages might disappear in favor of cosmopolitan culture. For example, in Germany the proliferation of popular slang called Denglish, that represents a mix among English and German could result in total abandonment of their native language in the future. Therefore, overlooking this possible issue will deprive most European nations from their national identity in the future.
To sum up, while the main focus of each government should be problems requiring the most immediate and urgent attention, addressing those problems without careful consideration of effects and the possible outcomes for the future might result in deleterious consequences for our society.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 532, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'industrialized'.
Suggestion: industrialized
...of the ideas of chairman Mao is quickly industrialize the country, which lead to migration of...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 22, Rule ID: MAIN_FOCUS[1]
Message: Use simply 'focus'.
Suggestion: focus
... in the future. To sum up, while the main focus of each government should be problems r...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, so, still, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, kind of, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 19.5258426966 41% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 33.0505617978 54% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 58.6224719101 90% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2380.0 2235.4752809 106% => OK
No of words: 411.0 442.535393258 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.79075425791 5.05705443957 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50256981431 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0321202636 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 248.0 215.323595506 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.603406326034 0.4932671777 122% => OK
syllable_count: 746.1 704.065955056 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.4241869944 60.3974514979 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.263157895 118.986275619 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6315789474 23.4991977007 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.36842105263 5.21951772744 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 10.2758426966 29% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 5.13820224719 234% => 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: 0.11597155355 0.243740707755 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0308683435868 0.0831039109588 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0383872845741 0.0758088955206 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0812367514793 0.150359130593 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0404037803543 0.0667264976115 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.1392134831 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.8420337079 68% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.3 12.1639044944 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.36 8.38706741573 124% => OK
difficult_words: 148.0 100.480337079 147% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => 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: 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.