Some people think the money spent in developing the technology for space exploration is not justified. There are more beneficial ways to spend this money. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is believed by many that investment in creating technological marvels to explore space is unjustified and there are other ways to benefically allot the public budget. I mostly object to the point of view as technological applications from the journeys to space can be utilized to merit humanity, albeit they may be expensive.
The main reason I disagree is that cultivating technologies for researching space helps enhance living standards of humans. It is not uncommon for astronauts to test growth of plants in space. Given the outcomes of such experiments, plants with higher productivity and quality can be created and harnessed to improve harvests, raising humans’ quality of life accordingly.
Additionally, as living conditions on earth are deteriorating due to human and objective factors such as pollution and clamities, space exploration may hold the key to the survival of humanity in years to come. If space explorers can open the gateway to planets that are able to accommodate conditions sustaining life, when the earth becomes unhabitable people can simply migrate to those planets and continue living.
Admittedly, expenditures allocated for venturing into the cosmic seem daunting compared to spending for education and healthcare. This is rooted in the fact that the number of rockets and satellites manufactured for space missions is few. The supply chain for those equipment thus can not be optimized for cost reduction, makes it higher than the raise of teachers’ and medical workers’ salary.
In summary, I somewhat disagree with the view that investing in exploring the universe is unnecessary and spending should be diverted to educate and take care of people. As governments already pay for those priorities and when space projects succeed, the ginormous gains will compensate for the initial allocations. Even though they take large sum of resources at first, the success of the undertakings will safeguard the existence and improve the welfare of human beings.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 260, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this equipment' or 'those equipments'?
Suggestion: this equipment; those equipments
...e missions is few. The supply chain for those equipment thus can not be optimized for cost redu...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, first, if, may, so, thus, in summary, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1689.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 314.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.37898089172 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01649521415 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 176.041082164 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.595541401274 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 534.6 506.74238477 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.3679925057 49.4020404114 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.923076923 106.682146367 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1538461538 20.7667163134 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.46153846154 7.06120827912 63% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => 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: 0.178121707439 0.244688304435 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0667460569114 0.084324248473 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0377729960965 0.0667982634062 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0959423437115 0.151304729494 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0160728436431 0.056905535591 28% => 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: 16.0 13.0946893788 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 50.2224549098 77% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.22 12.4159519038 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.31 8.58950901804 120% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 78.4519038076 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => 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.