Some people think that it is more important to spend public money on promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illnesses, rather than funding the treatment for people who are already ill.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
In contemporary society, the question whether governmental budget should be allocated towards promoting an active and healthy lifestyle or towards medical care for ill patients has raised a noticeable amount of controversy. From my perspective, I wholeheartedly agree with the claim in question due to the pre-emptive nature of the investment to address clinical concerns as well as the consideration of taking an opposite course of action.
To elaborate, illness prevention is the more preferable approach as it is a proactive solution to potential health problems. By encouraging a healthy lifestyle along with clean and nutritious food intake, several individuals may reduce the risk associated with health-related diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, obesity and diabetes. Subsequently, as there will be less patients experiencing health issues, hospitals will have more capacity to treat patients who require intensive treatment for chronic or detrimental diseases. Furthermore, although the initial investment for healthy lifestyle promotion can be costly, in the long term, when citizens’ health is in better or at top conditions, the government will no longer have to be concerned about the cost of treatment, which has proven to be more costly. Instead, they can decide to further invest in developing other fields, namely education, commerce or military, which can prosper the country’s economy and security.
In addition to the abovementioned facts, another primary rationale for the opposition of providing treatment after it has manifested is due to the setbacks of reactive approach. To be more specific, the reactive method is reacting to adverse diseases after it has occurred, which is providing treatment for patients with diseases stemming from an unhealthy lifestyle. By offering the patients treatment without properly educating or instructing them on how to maintain a healthy lifestyle, these patients will soon set back on their unhealthy habits and inactivity. As a result, they have a high chance of returning to medical institutions to receive more treatments after re-acquiring health-related illnesses. Consequently, the government may need to continuously spend their budgets on treatment and medical care, which can be detrimental considering there are various other fields which need more financial support.
To recapitulate briefly, this strongly reinforces my perspective that the proactive approach of healthy lifestyle encouragement and promotion should prevail over the reactive approach of providing treatment due to a wide range of upsides it brings to medical institutions and society.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 26, Rule ID: WHETHER[5]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "the question"?
Suggestion: whether
In contemporary society, the question whether governmental budget should be allocated...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 372, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun patients is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...iabetes. Subsequently, as there will be less patients experiencing health issues, ho...
^^^^
Line 5, column 385, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'patients'' or 'patient's'?
Suggestion: patients'; patient's
...an unhealthy lifestyle. By offering the patients treatment without properly educating or...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
briefly, consequently, furthermore, if, may, so, well, in addition, such as, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 7.85571142285 178% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 41.998997996 131% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 8.3376753507 264% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2255.0 1615.20841683 140% => OK
No of words: 391.0 315.596192385 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.76726342711 5.12529762239 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44676510885 4.20363070211 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.23851623261 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 176.041082164 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.557544757033 0.561755894193 99% => OK
syllable_count: 696.6 506.74238477 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 30.0 20.2975951904 148% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 44.5310874725 49.4020404114 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 173.461538462 106.682146367 163% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.0769230769 20.7667163134 145% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.69230769231 7.06120827912 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => 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: 0.155918481646 0.244688304435 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.058055370826 0.084324248473 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0331736481518 0.0667982634062 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0937867405762 0.151304729494 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0190934577802 0.056905535591 34% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.8 13.0946893788 159% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 24.11 50.2224549098 48% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.4 11.3001002004 154% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.78 12.4159519038 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.25 8.58950901804 119% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 78.4519038076 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 9.78957915832 163% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 10.1190380762 138% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.7795591182 158% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.