The government should spend more money on medical research to protect citizens’ health rather than on protecting the environment. Do you agree or disagree?
The debate over whether the government should allocate a large proportion of the national budget on medical service rather than on environmental protection to safeguard humans’ health has become a predominant issue recently. From my perspective, investing in first aid should be as equal as in protecting the environment.
On the one hand, government investment in enhancing the capacity of medical research will bring about a plethora of advantages to the public and the government. One of the most irrefutable benefits is to develop new vaccines against brand-new viruses, which aids individuals to steer clear of fatality. Take SARS-2003 as a prime example, medical research made a breakthrough in fruitfully developing a new vaccine to save millions of infected lives. Additionally, what the government might take advantage of medical development is to strengthen the economy. This is because medical research might build up the labour workforce’s resilience to a freak disease, which leads to improving work performance and therefore promotes the economy.
On the other hand, subsidizing for environmental protection can not be overlooked as this also hinders humans from contracting an array of diseases. In practice, investing money on initiating a friendly-bicycle transport system might contribute to improving human health. This is because carbon dioxide emissions from private cars and other vehicles are supposed to deteriorate air pollution, which causes respiratory diseases. For instance, carbon dioxide emissions caused by motorbikes in the metropolitan areas in Vietnam are attributed to the rise in the number of diseases related to breathing. As a result, carbon emission reduction resulting from preventing fossil fuels burning might assist humans to improve their general health.
In conclusion, it is plausible that the argument on which aspect should the government spend more money on will perpetuate in the future. Nonetheless, it is my firm conviction that the government ought to allocate the state budget on both medical research and environmental protection equally.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, look, nonetheless, so, then, therefore, for instance, in conclusion, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 10.0 24.0651302605 42% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 41.998997996 119% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 8.3376753507 240% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1793.0 1615.20841683 111% => OK
No of words: 316.0 315.596192385 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.67405063291 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.18280026285 2.80592935109 113% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 176.041082164 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.579113924051 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 564.3 506.74238477 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.787702952 49.4020404114 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.071428571 106.682146367 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5714285714 20.7667163134 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.35714285714 7.06120827912 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.247299559122 0.244688304435 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0817611781275 0.084324248473 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0704848385846 0.0667982634062 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167777371611 0.151304729494 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0915091118386 0.056905535591 161% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 13.0946893788 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 50.2224549098 64% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.9 12.4159519038 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.92 8.58950901804 115% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 78.4519038076 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.