Should wealthy nations be required to share their wealth among poorer nations by providing such things as food and education Or is it the responsibility of the governments of poorer nations to look after their citizens themselves

Essay topics:

Should wealthy nations be required to share their wealth among poorer nations by providing such things as food and education? Or is it the responsibility of the governments of poorer nations to look after their citizens themselves?

Recently, the phenomenon of assisting poor nations by wealthy ones and its corresponding impacts have sparked a long-running dispute. In this regard, whereas some people believe that it is the duty of rich countries to help poorer nations, others of the opinion that there isn’t any responsibility on the shoulders of wealthy nations with respect to share their wealth among poorer nations. In my mind, rich countries should devote a proportion of their wealth, whether a tiny share or rather significant part, to improve living circumstances of poor nations because of philanthropy matters as well as educational considerations.
Obviously, humans are the only species who could feel sympathy. Nowadays, various countries across the four corners of the globe, like African countries, are suffering from poverty and hunger as well. However, rich countries’ populace is wasting huge amount of food and drugs in their everyday life. Developed countries are capable of alleviating pains of other humans through sending their extra food and medicines to hungry individuals of poorer countries. Consequently, being a philanthropist leads to prepare food and drug for deprived people.
Moreover, loads of seemingly poor nations aren’t poor regarding natural resources, minerals, and fertilized lands. They are miserable of the lack of experts and experienced managers like wealthy counterparts. Hence, wealthy countries which are rich in the matter of human resource, should provide poorer nations with experts and prodigies in such aspects as education, economics, mining, cutting-edge technologies, and agriculture. Ergo, while these experts pave the way to teach poor nations’ youngsters and adolescence, they prepare those students and pupils for their not distant future burdens. Perhaps, the most significant one is to prosper their poor country and turn it to a wealthy nation during next generations.
On the other hand, we shouldn’t lose sight of opponents’ view. They elucidate that gaining such level of wellbeing and welfare in their country is an arduous and labor-intensive task, and so sharing their wealth among poorer nations freely doesn’t make sense. Politicians and governors of those nations should be in charge of seeking ways to become wealthy rather than begging food, money, and other stuff from other countries.
To sum up, despite compelling arguments on both sides, I opt to vigorously support the idea that helping poor nations by wealthy ones is inevitable. We, as humans, should take into account that what goes around, comes around. Maybe, one day rich countries would become poor and require the assistance of others.

Votes
Average: 7.5 (2 votes)
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 111, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
... its corresponding impacts have sparked a long-running dispute. In this regard, whereas some p...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, hence, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, well, whereas, while, such as, as well as, to sum up, with respect to, on the other hand

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 10.4138276553 182% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 41.998997996 145% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 8.3376753507 48% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2256.0 1615.20841683 140% => OK
No of words: 409.0 315.596192385 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.51589242054 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49708221141 4.20363070211 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89178080213 2.80592935109 103% => OK
Unique words: 249.0 176.041082164 141% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60880195599 0.561755894193 108% => OK
syllable_count: 667.8 506.74238477 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.872750024 49.4020404114 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.736842105 106.682146367 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5263157895 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06120827912 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.380780412072 0.244688304435 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102674693778 0.084324248473 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0847444620504 0.0667982634062 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.2078798504 0.151304729494 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0953767309056 0.056905535591 168% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.0946893788 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 50.2224549098 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.74 12.4159519038 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.43 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 78.4519038076 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 9.78957915832 199% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => 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.