Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed.
The concept that arts is food for the mind, is indisputably accepted across the globe, including the poor nations where most people do not get two square meals. It gives us relaxation after a tedious day of work, or at remorseful moments. Arts in many different forms are prevalent since the ancient days, and it is generally considered as an indispensable part of life. All governments budget for a considerable amount of money every year, to bolster and spread these forms of arts.
Having said that, there are times when everything is not right. In situations where people are unemployed, food is expensive, and most people are starving physically, it may not make much sense to spend frivolous amount of money in arts. After all, what is the point of feeding the mind, when the body itself is starving? Instead, the amount should be spent to create more jobs so that people can earn enough to buy the basic necessities of life. Or t can be used to subsidize food that is otherwise too expensive to reach the hands of common people.
The scene is not very uncommon across many countries in the world where people are enjoying a birthday or wedding ceremony, while some poor and hungry people are waiting outside to get the remains of the food. Since time immemorial, kings or rich people have kept on organizing magnificent events on music, poem or drama, accompanied with luxurious dinner or hunting parties, while the ordinary people in the kingdom are suffering from malnutrition. This can’t be supported any more in modern days.
The main objectives of any government’s budget planning is, the benefits have to reach the people. The people should first get the basic necessities, and after meeting that need, there can be provisions for upliftment of quality of life. Arts is part of this upliftment, while food falls under the basic requirements category.
However, it is also to be considered that, there are a number of people who live on particular form of arts. A rural singer who earns money by singing a song to the public, or an artist selling portraits of rich people, are to be supported wherever required. It is not a big amount, and should not have much impact in overall idea of curtailing cost in arts and spending that saved money in welfare of common people.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 248, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...work, or at remorseful moments. Arts in many different forms are prevalent since the ancient d...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 421, Rule ID: BASIC_FUNDAMENTALS[1]
Message: Use simply 'necessities'.
Suggestion: necessities
... that people can earn enough to buy the basic necessities of life. Or t can be used to subsidize ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 137, Rule ID: BASIC_FUNDAMENTALS[1]
Message: Use simply 'necessities'.
Suggestion: necessities
...people. The people should first get the basic necessities, and after meeting that need, there can...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 310, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'requirements'' or 'requirement's'?
Suggestion: requirements'; requirement's
...tment, while food falls under the basic requirements category. However, it is also to be ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 65, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e considered that, there are a number of people who live on particular form of ar...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, may, so, while, after all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.5258426966 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 33.0505617978 51% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1911.0 2235.4752809 85% => OK
No of words: 395.0 442.535393258 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.83797468354 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45809453852 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6638590144 2.79657885939 95% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 215.323595506 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.536708860759 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 594.9 704.065955056 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.8542346901 60.3974514979 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.166666667 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9444444444 23.4991977007 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.83333333333 5.21951772744 54% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.122898755765 0.243740707755 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0373427488947 0.0831039109588 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0291941951674 0.0758088955206 39% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0692554722821 0.150359130593 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0332980215503 0.0667264976115 50% => 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: 12.3 14.1392134831 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.8420337079 120% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.79 12.1639044944 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.16 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 100.480337079 87% => 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?
---------------------
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.