Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in the military.
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 contention that government should spend as much in as arts as they do on the military is a much-debated one. While decent enough government funding can help promote the culture and heritage of our country, spending an amount commensurate to the defence budget is absolutely preposterous. Therefore, I strongly disagree with the posited argument. The recommendation may seem prudent and judicious at a cursory glance, but on deeply ruminating on the topic, one realizes that it is specious. There are two reasons for the same.
Firstly, the government spends a lot of money on the military, sometimes as much as 35 to 40 percent of the fiscal budget, because it is a matter of our national security. Every country has its own allies and foes. If they do not spend a gargantuan amount for defence or military purposes, then we would be vulnerable to attack by insurgents, foes, terrorists etc. Also, there is always a heightened risk of espionage and spying by foreign agents. To counter these attempts, massive funding is required for the intel and the firepower of the military to become efficacious to deal with these troublesome situations. I could go on to state that even the well being of a citizen would be on the line if we do not invest in the military a humungous sum of our federal budget. But is there such a necessity to invest a consummate amount of money on arts? Perhaps not. Our national heritage or our endemic arts is not under a constant 'threat' by our adversaries, nor will our life become perilous if one of the art forms becomes extinct overnight. There are no cases of exigencies associated with the art forms in order to warrant a budget proportional to that of the military.
Secondly, the funding of defence is huge mainly because of the huge research and development costs associated with keeping our country "au-courant" with the latest technologies. We are always in constant fear of being 'left behind' in the war on technology and cyber warfare. So, in order to ramp up our defence efforts, we need massive funding to keep our research cutting-edge and keep our country in the vanguard position, when it comes to the technological aspects of warfare. On the other hand, most of the funding in arts is mostly concerned with the maintenance of museums, preservation and promotion of our national heritage, which, though important, do not warrant commensurate spending on the same. The 'art' in arts is mainly contingent of the artist to perform. We do not need R&D efforts on the same to improve the arts! Therefore the argument that calls for proportional spending on military and arts is specious, to say the least.
It can be argued that spending so much amount of the federal budget on our defence is a sham because, in modern times, we do not have fear of any 'war' between us and our adversaries. This is a misconception. While it is true that we do not need the same amount of spending which we used to spend during the times of the world wars, there is always a constant threat by our enemies of attack. One needs to only look up the cases of Afghanistan and Syria to understand the same. Therefore, I strongly disagree with the given recommendation that the government should be spending the same amount of money in the arts as that in the military.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 814, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...But is there such a necessity to invest a consummate amount of money on arts? Perhaps not. O...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 841, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...fforts on the same to improve the arts! Therefore the argument that calls for proportiona...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well, while, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 33.0505617978 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 89.0 58.6224719101 152% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2730.0 2235.4752809 122% => OK
No of words: 574.0 442.535393258 130% => OK
Chars per words: 4.75609756098 5.05705443957 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89472135074 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90852080205 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 215.323595506 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.442508710801 0.4932671777 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 869.4 704.065955056 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.4839946553 60.3974514979 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.2 118.986275619 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.96 23.4991977007 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.92 5.21951772744 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.163529515786 0.243740707755 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0533812688051 0.0831039109588 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0518738796829 0.0758088955206 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118762940584 0.150359130593 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0306621284811 0.0667264976115 46% => 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: 12.5 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.8420337079 118% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.62 12.1639044944 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.03 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 100.480337079 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.