Some countries achieve international success by building specialized facilities to train top athletes instead of providing sports facilities that everyone can use. Is it a positive or negative development?
Some nations attain global success by equipping special facilities for professional sport players in lieu of supplying public sport facilities. This essay will elaborate on both sides of the notion and explain why the role of the public facilities overshadows the specialized facilities.
One the one hand, allocation for top-notched athletes stimulates the popularity of sport within countries. If governments scatter their financial resources on different recipents, the athletes may lack necessary investment which plagues their practice and finally effects performance. Additionally, The success of individual professional sport players can spur domestic sport development. Attaining good reputation and amassing mammoth fortune from global sport competition would catapult sport players quickly on the acension to the limelight, they then become role models for other sport devotees. The quinessential successes of Ronaldo or Messi are prime examples, the famed football players stir up passion of many football devotees in their motherland.
On the other hand, therer are dark sides to insufficience of investment in public sport equipment. It is common that public areas where the equipment installed are the mecca for the local socilizing and bonding with neighbors. Without the facilities, civillians may find it difficult to become sociable thus hinder their life quality. Another drawback of selecting specialized facilites over public facilities is that it would have implications on the public health. The omnipresence of the fast pace of modern life discourages people from taking part in physical acitivities, a catalyst for the rampant sedentary lifestyle. Not only free of charge sport facilites allow people from all walks of life to get in shape, but also relieves them of stresses which are rife in today’s world.
In sum, even though highly focus on top sport players bring success and act as a catalyst for the progress of sport in nations, the position of public sport equipment is more significant as they correlate closely to the health of the mass.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, if, may, so, then, thus, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 24.0651302605 54% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 41.998997996 107% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1764.0 1615.20841683 109% => OK
No of words: 318.0 315.596192385 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.54716981132 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91350461765 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 176.041082164 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.594339622642 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 540.0 506.74238477 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 7.0 2.52805611222 277% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.6986094446 49.4020404114 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.0 106.682146367 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7142857143 20.7667163134 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.42857142857 7.06120827912 63% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.185241192871 0.244688304435 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0650024773078 0.084324248473 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0600270121373 0.0667982634062 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125352191328 0.151304729494 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.050354625311 0.056905535591 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 13.0946893788 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.21 12.4159519038 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.79 8.58950901804 114% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 78.4519038076 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.