Some people believe that it is impossible to help everyone in need around the world. That is why government should only focus on their own countries. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Explain.
Helping others is considered to be the best trait of mankind. Presently, some masses think that it is not possible to help each and every person at world level so local authorities should take responsibilities to take care of their own people. Here, I would like to discord with given statement.
There are multifarious points to upsurge my point of view. First and foremost, affluent countries are blesses with massive resources like water, electricity, food shelter and so on. As a result, they can help the thriving countries. To demonstrate, nations like America, Canada and England can provide help to other countries like Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan as there is scarcity of natural resources. Besides this, it bridges the gap between distinct countries by helping each other. As it is well said that ' if we help someone in their critical situation, then they surely help us when time comes'. To be specific, last year Nepal faced a natural disaster as a result a large number of folks injured, died and become shelterless. At that time, India and other countries around the world help them. Thus, it make India and Nepal more close.
Further emphasizing on my point of view. Every country should help another country for the sake of humanity. Government of developed nations should provide financial as well as technical aid to underprivileged countries. For instance, Australia, New Zealand and France can provide financial help to many countries. Therefore, developing countries could also stand with them in future. Besides this, exchange of resources can also become helpful in this trend, like Iran, Iraq can exchange their fuel with food and shelter. Hence, Brotherhood elevated and poverty declined. On the contrary, others have conflicting view.
They think that, governments of developing countries should pay full attention towards their own people. For example, countries like India always like to help other small neighbourer countries with electricity, finance, food and shelter, whereas there is a great scarcity of these resources in front of Indian people. So government should firstly help their own people rather than trying to reach others.
To recapitulate, helping each other escalate the harmonious bonding and develop relations between countries. So affluent countries should provide aid to thriving countries as well as should also take care of their own natives.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 508, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ping each other. As it is well said that if we help someone in their critical sit...
^^
Line 3, column 669, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...al faced a natural disaster as a result a large number of folks injured, died and become shelterl...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 808, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'makes'?
Suggestion: makes
...es around the world help them. Thus, it make India and Nepal more close. Further ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Further,
... it make India and Nepal more close. Further emphasizing on my point of view. Every ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 210, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...well as technical aid to underprivileged countries. For instance, Australia, New ...
^^
Line 5, column 376, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...ng countries could also stand with them in future. Besides this, exchange of resources ca...
^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'besides', 'first', 'firstly', 'hence', 'if', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'well', 'whereas', 'for example', 'for instance', 'as a result', 'as well as', 'on the contrary']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.264367816092 0.247107183377 107% => OK
Verbs: 0.140229885057 0.155533422707 90% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0942528735632 0.0946595960268 100% => OK
Adverbs: 0.048275862069 0.0501214627716 96% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0459770114943 0.0437548338989 105% => OK
Prepositions: 0.124137931034 0.122226691241 102% => OK
Participles: 0.0275862068966 0.0403226058552 68% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.7255116892 2.80594681477 97% => OK
Infinitives: 0.032183908046 0.0326793684256 98% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.00163938923432 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0551724137931 0.0861772015684 64% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.032183908046 0.021408717616 150% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00229885057471 0.011925033212 19% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2403.0 1933.35771543 124% => OK
No of words: 381.0 316.048096192 121% => OK
Chars per words: 6.30708661417 6.12580529183 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.20517956788 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.396325459318 0.374742101984 106% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.312335958005 0.28420135186 110% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.204724409449 0.203846283523 100% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.146981627297 0.137316102897 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7255116892 2.80594681477 97% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 176.037074148 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530183727034 0.56093040696 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 58.5793255659 60.7387585426 96% => OK
How many sentences: 25.0 16.0891783567 155% => OK
Sentence length: 15.24 20.7743622355 73% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.1228367903 49.517814964 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.12 127.492653851 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.24 20.7743622355 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.68 0.814263465372 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38877755511 114% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 3.99599198397 150% => OK
Readability: 46.4735958005 49.1944974215 94% => OK
Elegance: 1.77450980392 1.69124875643 105% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.320635118738 0.332605444948 96% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0606824799348 0.102741220458 59% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0514310285628 0.0668466124924 77% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.421586007415 0.534860350844 79% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.154731476905 0.148594505496 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103667052868 0.134430193775 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0598918246789 0.0742795772207 81% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.302909677132 0.324371583561 93% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0443939990446 0.0638462369009 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.222303803128 0.228012699653 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0560152300911 0.058150111329 96% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.68436873747 184% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.41683366733 117% => OK
Positive topic words: 15.0 5.90881763527 254% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 2.5751503006 116% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 1.9629258517 102% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 10.4468937876 191% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.