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?
Nowadays, there are some homeland have success in sports international by establish originality facilities to train top athletes. However, some people believed that they should be providing sports facilities that everyone can train. This essay will examine both sides of the argument before conclusion is drawn.
Admittedly, there are some arguments in favor of government should be providing sports for everyone can use but only athletes . First, government subsidies for success in sports are believed to equalize learning opportunities among young adolescent. This providing sports support, presumably, tends not only to increase the overall sports lover rate of lower-income people but also to mitigate their feeling of inferiority, which eventually promotes an active and egalitarian society. Second, sports facilities for everyone would probably result in a greater supply of highly qualified workers, which benefits society in the long run. In fact, it is acknowledged that skilled and equity between everyone to foster economic and success in any areas, they can compared other countries.
Nevertheless, the resultant problem would be far more significant than the minor of benefits once government supply of sports facilities for everyone can train. First, offering all people free sports facilities would likely correspond with a tremendous financial strain on a country. Generating no income from building and if government providing for everyone can use and even for beginners, they may not keep and rely on, training companies could become over-reliant on the state budget for funding, meaning that there would be less input to develop other important areas such as healthcare system and transport infrastructure. Second, free access to sports would tempt many young people including those who are not learning inclined or show no interest in sport pursuits, thereby adding great burdens for training admissions and enrollment staff and potentially wasting time that these young people could have spent pursuing more suitable activities paths. It, instead, there would be a more providing sports facilities if the resources were focused on supporting less privileged yet gifted people.
In conclusion, although there are some advantages, it seems to me that should design specialized facilities for training top athletes. This argument have demerits overshadow merits.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 26, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'homelands'?
Suggestion: homelands
Nowadays, there are some homeland have success in sports international by...
^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 126, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...s for everyone can use but only athletes . First, government subsidies for success...
^^
Line 2, column 332, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'sports'' or 'sport's'?
Suggestion: sports'; sport's
... tends not only to increase the overall sports lover rate of lower-income people but a...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 758, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'can' requires the base form of the verb: 'compare'
Suggestion: compare
...omic and success in any areas, they can compared other countries. Nevertheless, the res...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, in conclusion, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 7.85571142285 229% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 41.998997996 83% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2027.0 1615.20841683 125% => OK
No of words: 357.0 315.596192385 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.67787114846 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34677393335 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83629062155 2.80592935109 101% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 176.041082164 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.585434173669 0.561755894193 104% => OK
syllable_count: 628.2 506.74238477 124% => 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: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 80.5015941871 49.4020404114 163% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.133333333 106.682146367 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8 20.7667163134 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.2 7.06120827912 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.01903807615 80% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.353791695678 0.244688304435 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.13002304506 0.084324248473 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0951636484127 0.0667982634062 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.234626673055 0.151304729494 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0672690798164 0.056905535591 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 13.0946893788 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 50.2224549098 62% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.96 12.4159519038 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.69 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 78.4519038076 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.