Nowadays, many countries encounter overpopulation problems, and their populations face a lack of food or jobs. The prompt says that when there is a problem of citizens being hungry and unemployed, nations should suspend government funding for art. In my opinion, this is not a suitable way to handle hungry and unemployed people. In other words, I strongly disagree with this argument for two reasons.
To begin, significant numbers of people are suffering from a lack of food and are unemployed; they are not suffering from a lack of entertainment, morality, or anything related to the arts. When normal people are hungry, they need some food to calm their hunger, or when people are unemployed, they need to be hired by employers. I suppose that food and jobs will be the first priorities when a significant number of people are hungry and unemployed. They will not need art, or they will set art as a lower priority. In other words, art cannot replace food when people need food. So, suspending government funding for the arts is not a direct approach to calming their hunger or unemployment. In fact, it seems to be suspending the money in the wrong way. If the government spends on art, the money spent on food may decrease, which may cause more severe hunger.
However, some people may argue that the arts can create jobs and make money for the citizens. I can not dispute this statement. Yet, not all people have a gift for art. It seems to me that if people draw a picture to make money, that picture should have value and be beautiful. Not all people can do it, especially when a significant number of people are encountering unemployment. There are only a few people who could draw or sculpt for jobs. If the government suspends the budget for art, there will be only a few people whose gift for art is excellent who benefit from this money, and a lot of people will be continuously suffering from unemployment.
In conclusion, some people may say that the government should spend on art when citizens are hungry or unemployed. What I explained above could make the argument of some people sound unreasonable because money will not help people have food, or the money will help only a few people be employed. Therefore, I argue that the government should spend on increasing the employment rate and importing foods from other countries, for example, to cope with this problem.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, may, so, therefore, for example, i suppose, in conclusion, in fact, in my opinion, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.4196629213 201% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 58.6224719101 65% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1984.0 2235.4752809 89% => OK
No of words: 413.0 442.535393258 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.80387409201 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50803742585 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72112091959 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 215.323595506 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.426150121065 0.4932671777 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 596.7 704.065955056 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59117977528 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.7446244755 60.3974514979 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.1818181818 118.986275619 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7727272727 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.31818181818 5.21951772744 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => 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: 0.209784697044 0.243740707755 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0784757001531 0.0831039109588 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0663975747661 0.0758088955206 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155033138596 0.150359130593 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0553458225316 0.0667264976115 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 14.1392134831 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 70.13 48.8420337079 144% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 12.1743820225 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.56 12.1639044944 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.21 8.38706741573 86% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 100.480337079 70% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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: 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.