Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.
Author’s claim “Government should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future” is partly correct as government main aim should be to mitigate the problems existing today so that the intensity of problems might not get worsen in future but author’s claim to bluntly recommends that government should only focus on today’s problems evading anticipated future problems is not prudent. Following are some cases which point out the consequences related to such statement.
Firstly, Consider the problem of Global warming, though today the problem seems innocuous but if people continue practicing in such a way that adds to global warming than it might result in atrocious consequences in future like heavy raining, unlikely weather, health problems due to excess inhale of harmful gases, etc. Thus, government should start controlling the actions of humans or find out other alternatives to avoid such consequences. Mainly due to industrialization and overuse of technology have resulted in such proliferation of Global warming, many environmentalist has anticipated that the if people will continue their actions at such rate than no one can save them from climatic disaster. Thus, in my opinion, such cases requires government attention today in order to eschew the problems of future.
Secondly, Many analysts works with current data and try to anticipate the trends in future. There are many issues on which analysts is been working like the usage of resources, economic condition, etc. Government uses the information provided by those analyst to make policies or laws to avoid the problems anticipated for future. For example, due to overuse of natural resources, government have invested more on researches which excavates the artificial means of natural resources so that people can use the artificial resources for satisfying their needs. If such action are not taken seriously today, it might happen that tomorrow such anticipated problem doesn’t have answer to it. In above example, if natural resources are not saved today, it might happen that future generation might not have natural resources at their disposition. Every step taken today have big impact on future. Thus, government should heed attention to problems anticipated for future in order to eradicate the problems at their nascent stage.
However, Present problems should be given first priority compared to anticipated problems for future as here anticipated problems might not come true. Consider an example, today’s current problem is the economic status or living conditions of poor people and instead of taking actions in order to alleviate such problems if government spend funds to find out the artificial means of natural resources would considered prudent? Thus, government should aims to first find the solution of today problems and then take actions in order to solve the anticipated problems of future.
On wrapping up, Only paying attention to present problems by eschewing future problems will not only have atrocious consequences but will instead proliferate the problems of future which one day government have to solve. Thus, government should take actions towards present as well as future problems.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 558, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun environmentalist seems to be countable; consider using: 'many environmentalists'.
Suggestion: many environmentalists
...n such proliferation of Global warming, many environmentalist has anticipated that the if people will...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 82, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...t data and try to anticipate the trends in future. There are many issues on which analyst...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 247, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this analyst' or 'those analysts'?
Suggestion: this analyst; those analysts
...rnment uses the information provided by those analyst to make policies or laws to avoid the p...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 679, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'answered'.
Suggestion: answered
...h anticipated problem doesn't have answer to it. In above example, if natural res...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 413, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'consider'
Suggestion: consider
...ficial means of natural resources would considered prudent? Thus, government should aims t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, thus, well, for example, as well as, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 33.0505617978 54% => OK
Preposition: 74.0 58.6224719101 126% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 12.9106741573 178% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2803.0 2235.4752809 125% => OK
No of words: 509.0 442.535393258 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.5068762279 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74984508646 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90211731715 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 215.323595506 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440078585462 0.4932671777 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 873.9 704.065955056 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 0.0 4.99550561798 0% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 101.783758616 60.3974514979 169% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.526315789 118.986275619 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.7894736842 23.4991977007 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.89473684211 5.21951772744 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 10.2758426966 29% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.480647940664 0.243740707755 197% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.15320965146 0.0831039109588 184% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.13876109857 0.0758088955206 183% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.297841679157 0.150359130593 198% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.133964182995 0.0667264976115 201% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.9 14.1392134831 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.8420337079 75% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 12.1639044944 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 100.480337079 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 11.8971910112 164% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.