it has been proved that smoking kills. In some countries it has been made illegal for people to smoke in all public places except in certain areas. All countries should make these rules.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
The idea of banning smoking from public places always was a very controversial one. Those who defend smoking on streets and in offices refer to human rights and the fact that tobacco is legal. Others hold an opinion that since there are undeniable proofs that cigarettes cause lethal diseases not only to smokers but to surrounding people, smoking should be allowed only in special places. I totally agree with the idea of making smoking legal in certain places only.
On the one hand, it is the society who makes smokers to smoke and it would be not fair just to put them into exile and consider the problem solved. Since we sell them tobacco they should have right to use it wherever they want.
On the other hand, those who do not smoke should have the right to breathe clean air. When somebody is smoking cigarette, health of non-smokers is under attack. Personally I am a former smoker, but even for me breathing tobacco smell is unbearable. It is not only makes people to temporarily feel bad but also causes long term effect. There are researches showing that so called ‘passive smoking’ could be even worse for health than smoking itself. Causing damage to anyone’s health is illegal, that is why there is no excuse for smoking in public places.
Another reason for this is the fact that not every legal action is allowed on public. Moral, cultural and juridical limitations are exist. For example, there are toilets for people’s bladder and nobody is allowed to urinate on streets. Tobacco is much more dangerous than that so there is no doubt every country should consider moving smokers to special places.
To conclude with, every country must think of the wellbeing of its citizens and make steps to protect them from dangerous effects of tobacco by banning smoking from public places.
The Art should be better funded by the government but there must be more control over where the money goes. Discuss.
Since prehistoric ages The Art highlights our lives, adds beauty and happiness and cultivates the taste among the people. However, nowadays creative projects became very pricey and can not bring pay-off to its authors. Some people think that the government should pay for those projects and, of course, observe precisely how those funds are being spent.
This is quite obvious that no structure except government knows nations cultural needs best. It can evaluate which sphere of cultural life have the necessity of development and achieve its goals of public loyalty by funding a specific field of The Art, controlling budget by giving maintenance only to projects they are interested in.
However, funding The Art selectively can lead artists to the lack of freedom in expressing themselves. In other words, then those who have power use money to regulate cultural life, it can limit the imagination and put artists into borders they would be scared to cross. Thus, here comes the censorship, which has nothing in common with the main democracy principles. For example, similar situation was in the Soviet Union, there solely the government controlled The Art and therefore the only career an artist could pursue is praising the Communist Party by his creations.
As an alternative of letting a government to control spending money on The Art, a non-governmental independent organization could be established. It must consist of the best cultural activists from a country. This would add a certain level of budget control and would guarantee there are no limits for The Art.
To conclude with, I believe that funding The Art is one of the main tasks of a state, but the purpose of it should be development, not making it to serve government political needs.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 133, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'existed'.
Suggestion: existed
... cultural and juridical limitations are exist. For example, there are toilets for peo...
^^^^^
Line 22, column 119, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean ''?
... state, but the purpose of it should be development, not making it to serve government poli...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, so, then, therefore, thus, well, for example, no doubt, of course, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 13.1623246493 266% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 7.85571142285 267% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 20.0 10.4138276553 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 7.30460921844 246% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 46.0 24.0651302605 191% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 41.998997996 183% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3109.0 1615.20841683 192% => OK
No of words: 620.0 315.596192385 196% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01451612903 5.12529762239 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.98996985923 4.20363070211 119% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58820013074 2.80592935109 92% => OK
Unique words: 307.0 176.041082164 174% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495161290323 0.561755894193 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 957.6 506.74238477 189% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 5.43587174349 221% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 1.0 0.384769539078 260% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 16.0721442886 193% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.5801549854 49.4020404114 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.290322581 106.682146367 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 20.7667163134 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 7.06120827912 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 11.0 4.38176352705 251% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.67935871743 173% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 3.9879759519 251% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.196089609237 0.244688304435 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0531585487633 0.084324248473 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0492145830867 0.0667982634062 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0786587172552 0.151304729494 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0537299180213 0.056905535591 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.0946893788 93% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 50.2224549098 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.4159519038 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.58950901804 95% => OK
difficult_words: 138.0 78.4519038076 176% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum five paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.