In recent years, people have had major disagreements about overspending on sports infrastructure. It is undeniable that several countries have a tendency to fund sports infrastructure for professional athletes to acquire global achievements. In my opinion, this is a positive development.
To begin with, people without good public facilities for physical exercise will increase the medical burden. Specifically, when citizens cannot exercise, they cannot cope with the risks of different common diseases such as obesity, stroke, and heart disease, all of which increase the government's expenditure on medical public services. If the country allocates resources to athletes to improve the training environment and ignores many health problems of citizens, it will arouse strong public opposition. However, this disadvantage mentioned above does not necessarily mean that professional athletes should have the privilege of monopolizing national resources.
In fact, the national sports teams helped governments boost their image. For example, national athletes who have won high scores in sports events such as the World Cup in the Olympics will enhance the image of the country and increase the patriotism of the younger generation. Through the efforts of athletes to enhance the image of the country, more foreign tourists can be attracted. At the same time, it may also attract companies to come to the country to expand the commercial market, therefore promoting the country’s economic development.
Second, the athletic glory achieved in international events can increase the patriotism of the younger generation. For example, Chinese children become more enthusiastic about basketball after Yao Ming wins the NBA games or playoffs. People will be proud of his honor and increase their patriotic enthusiasm, especially when they see athletes from your country win the game.
In conclusion, the idea of building sports facilities for athletes is positive because it can improve the image of the country and inspire the younger generation to exercise more. Considering its positive impact on people, we should continue our athlete-friendly program.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 285, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'governments'' or 'government's'?
Suggestion: governments'; government's
...eart disease, all of which increase the governments expenditure on medical public services....
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, may, second, so, therefore, thus, for example, in conclusion, in fact, such as, in my opinion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 13.1623246493 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 41.998997996 102% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1835.0 1615.20841683 114% => OK
No of words: 322.0 315.596192385 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.69875776398 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23607819155 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04559598017 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 176.041082164 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.590062111801 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 576.9 506.74238477 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.6646530444 49.4020404114 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.6875 106.682146367 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.125 20.7667163134 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.9375 7.06120827912 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => 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: 0.221380297468 0.244688304435 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0738836756904 0.084324248473 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0565135974328 0.0667982634062 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129793995085 0.151304729494 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0536504858326 0.056905535591 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 13.0946893788 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.26 50.2224549098 68% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.5 11.3001002004 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.78 12.4159519038 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 8.58950901804 108% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 78.4519038076 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.7795591182 148% => 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.