Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.
Does the govt. funding of arts ensure that arts can flourish and be available to all people? Despite the assertion that govt. funding of arts is necessary to ensure that arts can flourish and be available to people, it is imperative that government funding of arts threatens the integrity of arts. I believe that government funding of arts does threaten the integrity and even the flourishing of arts.
The chief reason for my view is that whenever govt. funding is involved, all purchasing of equipment slows down tremendously. For example, even if an institution has to buy a simple canvas board or a chair, it has to apply for the tender years ago because it has to be approved by the governmental funding board then has to go through various authorities before reaching in hands of the institute. Finally the growth rate of arts reduces and hence arts are not allowed to flourish with the speed it can if funded privately.
Secondly, items purchased by government tenders are restricted in quality and quantity. For instance, if it were your own money you can do whatever you want to do with it, buy small no. of quality products rather than buying large no. of low quality equipment. But, if it is government’s money you are instructed on how much to buy and what to buy of what quality. There is no choice. Hence, if the equipment is not proper, the resulting artwork is going to be of lower standard. Thus, govt. funding is damaging the standard of arts.
Some might argue that govt. funding reduces the money institution has to spend from its own pocket. Yet it is imperative that the result of spending its own money improves the standard of equipment and hence the artworks. After weighing both sides, we conclude that govt. funding is more detrimental to arts than it is beneficial.
For all the reasons stated above, I believe that govt. funding does not allow arts to flourish the way it should and threatens its integrity.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 399, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...ore reaching in hands of the institute. Finally the growth rate of arts reduces and hen...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, hence, if, second, secondly, so, then, thus, as to, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 58.6224719101 80% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1616.0 2235.4752809 72% => OK
No of words: 338.0 442.535393258 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.78106508876 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28774723029 4.55969084622 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68021211679 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 215.323595506 75% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.476331360947 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 490.5 704.065955056 70% => 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: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 23.0359550562 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 55.3787829408 60.3974514979 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 67.3333333333 118.986275619 57% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 14.0833333333 23.4991977007 60% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 3.79166666667 5.21951772744 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.500540677755 0.243740707755 205% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.132776406108 0.0831039109588 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.205061327115 0.0758088955206 270% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.289335838227 0.150359130593 192% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.258858491696 0.0667264976115 388% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.1 14.1392134831 57% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.73 48.8420337079 135% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 12.1743820225 62% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.85 12.1639044944 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.6 8.38706741573 91% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 100.480337079 70% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 11.8971910112 50% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 11.2143820225 68% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.