The government's investment in arts, music and theatre is a waste of money. Governments should invest these funds in public services instead.
To what extent do you agree with this statement?
Art has been paying a vital role in all societies for centuries. However, some people believe that any kind of aesthetics should not be funded by public authorities, which can allot more money to public services. I strongly agree with this opinion since music, paintings and theater do not have a direct value to society and funding of art will always contribute to particular artists directly but not to entire artistic industry.
Neither visual, nor audial arts are capable to solve any human being issues such as health problems, hunger, education or provide with a place to live. Since basic needs have not been addressed even in the most developed countries, governments should allocate funds to public sector in order to improve quality of life of citizens. Therefore, any attempt to subsidise arts should be posponed until its become the most essential unresolved aspect of peoples lifes. For example, Russian cinema industry receives approximately ten billion of rubbles every year from senators, whereas public healthcare system lacks fifty billion to provide hospitals with necessary equipment. In other words, state leades ought to concentrate their effort on public sector.
In addition to above-mentioned problem, government’s allocations will always be received by specific workers of the industry. Hence, this leaves space for corruption, which entails an inefficient distribution of resources. For instance, russian ministory of arts supports only particular movie producers, whoes films often fail in public premiers. Thus, senators should avoid rendering any financial assistance by any means.
In conclusion, I truthly believe that government’s involvement participation in artistic industry is destructive, due to numerous issues it should resovle before and its inefficiency in funding private sector.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, however, if, so, therefore, thus, whereas, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, kind of, such as, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 24.0651302605 42% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 41.998997996 102% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1560.0 1615.20841683 97% => OK
No of words: 276.0 315.596192385 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.65217391304 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90660113926 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 176.041082164 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.692028985507 0.561755894193 123% => OK
syllable_count: 487.8 506.74238477 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.5300894599 49.4020404114 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.0 106.682146367 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2307692308 20.7667163134 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.9230769231 7.06120827912 155% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.67935871743 35% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.211074884736 0.244688304435 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0650976596818 0.084324248473 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0388571989349 0.0667982634062 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1237511928 0.151304729494 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0394096226537 0.056905535591 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 13.0946893788 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 50.2224549098 66% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.49 12.4159519038 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.63 8.58950901804 124% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 78.4519038076 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.78957915832 138% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.