The government should allocate more funding to teaching sciences rather than other subjects in order for a country to develop and progress. To what extent do you agree?
There has been today’s issue that science progressed and its application in range-wide sectors enormously improve most of the people’s situation all over the world. In view of this, it is necessary that governments’ focus should be more to fund teaching science than other important subjects. Personally, I share the same viewpoints for some reasons which I will elaborate in this essay.
Perhaps, the first primary reason is that the government funding to science enables students to experience competent practical management of discoveries, natural and renewable resources. Consequently, in the long-term life, the energy and mineral resources sector of a country could be sufficiently mobilized and continuously advanced. Another reason for this, science education which requires frequent analysis and intended experiments may lead to recognizing the students’ critical thinking who presumably invent scientific discoveries. Without having this, students will likely be in their old mindset and classical thoughts which might cause impractical concepts of science.
Admittedly, it is also true that other subjects such as arts and social play an important role in building the youth’s creativity. Nevertheless, to advance the knowledge of science both practically and theoretically may shape the futuristic young people who are fully aware of science development and country progressed.
In summary, I do agree with this notion that large amounts of money funded more to science subjects can noticeably bring benefits in both students especially and countries as a whole. This ranges from practical competent of science to in-depth analysis of an invention which benefits the country in almost all sectors.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 248, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'resources'' or 'resource's'?
Suggestion: resources'; resource's
... long-term life, the energy and mineral resources sector of a country could be sufficient...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, if, may, nevertheless, so, in summary, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 41.998997996 74% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 8.3376753507 216% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1485.0 1615.20841683 92% => OK
No of words: 256.0 315.596192385 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.80078125 5.12529762239 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 4.20363070211 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15729407236 2.80592935109 113% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 176.041082164 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.6484375 0.561755894193 115% => OK
syllable_count: 449.1 506.74238477 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 16.0721442886 68% => 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: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.105971227 49.4020404114 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.0 106.682146367 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2727272727 20.7667163134 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.63636363636 7.06120827912 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.2363070583 0.244688304435 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0863541222065 0.084324248473 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0792611431988 0.0667982634062 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140864529826 0.151304729494 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0462197573013 0.056905535591 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 13.0946893788 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 50.2224549098 62% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.66 12.4159519038 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.27 8.58950901804 120% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 78.4519038076 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.