Researches into new types of medicine and treatments are essential to improve health and deal with diseases. Who do you think should fund these researches: private companies, individuals or the government?
In today’s world, medical research plays a significant role in improving physical health and treatment of maladies. From my perspective, it should be financed by both government agencies and non-governmental bodies such as private corporations and individual people.
First of all, there are a multitude of reasons why researches into new types of medication and therapies should be subsidized by the state. One possible reason is that the state needs to be responsible for the well-being of citizens as most of the national budget derives from taxes. The taxpayers accordingly have the right to enjoy an advanced, effective healthcare system. Another justification is that a decent physical health is highly associated with a productive working life. For this reason, government should invest in researching and developing new drugs and treatments to increase the residents’ longevity and productivity. In doing so, the authorities can substantially reduce amount of money channeled into medical services and witness economic returns of government backing.
Medical research should however be funded by wealthy individuals and private enterprises as well. There is no denying that if a health research is supported by the government only, it will put much pressure on the state budget. This could be attributed to the fact that authorities need to allocate tax money not only to medical care but also to other key sectors such as education and transportation. Without appropriate financial distribution, the living conditions of inhabitants would not be fully satisfied. Hence, industry-sourced expenditures on the invention of innovative medicines and treatments would help ease financial burden, spurring the country’s sustainable development. What is more, when acting as financiers to studies on healthcare, people could find their lives meaningful and purposeful. To be more specific, they would feel self-worth once their contribution is acknowledged.
In sum, for the above-mentioned reasons, I would contend that the collaboration between government and non-government sources of funding might bring promising outcomes for the medical researches. This would therefore lead to a more fulfilling of the citizens.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, first, hence, however, if, so, therefore, well, such as, first of all, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 7.85571142285 191% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1899.0 1615.20841683 118% => OK
No of words: 332.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.71987951807 5.12529762239 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.2685907696 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.33666835511 2.80592935109 119% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 176.041082164 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.626506024096 0.561755894193 112% => OK
syllable_count: 578.7 506.74238477 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.2336769377 49.4020404114 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.705882353 106.682146367 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5294117647 20.7667163134 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.29411764706 7.06120827912 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.239541166517 0.244688304435 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0730936728974 0.084324248473 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0755258873837 0.0667982634062 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142115085653 0.151304729494 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0599153587159 0.056905535591 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.0946893788 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.9 12.4159519038 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.14 8.58950901804 118% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 78.4519038076 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.