The government’s investment in arts, music, and theatre is a waste of money. Governments should invest these funds in public services instead.
People are more likely to demand for not only receiving public services but also enjoying arts, music and theatre in contemporary life. There is a perception the budgets governments expend on these kinds of recreational activity should be substitutionally invested for public services. Although I agree that spending money on public services is vital, to my way of thinking, it is completely not wasteful to invest in the arts.
There are numerous reasons for the importance of the investment in public services. First of all, communal services such as schools, hospitals, and transport modes make a great contribution to the advancement in quality of life of inhabitants. More importantly, such much concerns to proper funds in these public services could allow the country to thrive on several perspectives including economy, education and healthcare. In addition, it would help to alleviate many issues like unemployment which might cause crime and more.
Likewise, it is also essential for arts, music and theatre to be paid much more attention to be invested. These aspects are considered as intangible cultural values that are as critically influential as tangible ones, which does provide people to strengthen their spiritual life. Besides, these recreational activities aid the nation to develop in economy and culture sharing by attracting foreign visitors. Local residents can be thereby given an edge to have jobs to earn for living.
In conclusion, hardly no one can deny advantages resulting from the investment in public services as well as arts, music and theatre. I am of the opinion that both artistic values and public services deserve to obtain subsidy fairly.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 267, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
... of inhabitants. More importantly, such much concerns to proper funds in these publi...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, if, likewise, so, then, well, in addition, in conclusion, such as, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 7.0 171% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 1.00243902439 599% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 6.8 132% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 5.60731707317 250% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 33.7804878049 107% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 3.97073170732 252% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1419.0 965.302439024 147% => OK
No of words: 266.0 196.424390244 135% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33458646617 4.92477711251 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03850299372 3.73543355544 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93432792991 2.65546596893 111% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 106.607317073 154% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.616541353383 0.547539520022 113% => OK
syllable_count: 455.4 283.868780488 160% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.45097560976 117% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 1.53170731707 392% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 0.0 4.33902439024 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 8.94146341463 145% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.4926829268 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.6179111848 43.030603864 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.153846154 112.824112599 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4615384615 22.9334400587 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.07692307692 5.23603664747 173% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 3.70975609756 243% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.09268292683 73% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.318173079547 0.215688989381 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100076925976 0.103423049105 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0842237952352 0.0843802449381 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.186939251253 0.15604864568 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.117082607454 0.0819641961636 143% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.2329268293 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 61.2550243902 70% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.3012195122 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 11.4140731707 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.56 8.06136585366 119% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 40.7170731707 204% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.4329268293 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.9970731707 91% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.0658536585 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.