In spite of the advances made in agriculture, many people around the world still go hungry. Why is this the case? What can be done about this problem?
Recent years have witnessed tremendous developments in agricultural science yet every day people all over the world continue to suffer and even die from hunger. In my opinion, this is because innovations rarely impact the developing world and the best solution for it is to direct humanitarian funding towards these advances.
The main cause of more advanced agricultural methods not reaching the people who need it the most is that the developing world has trouble implementing these methods. There are a number of reasons for this ranging from limited financial resources to poor existing infrastructure to political instability, depending on the country in question. One example of this would be in many African nations, where malnourishment has historically been highest. Countries like the Congo have seen revolution after revolution over the last several decades, which has effectively destabilised the entire country. The universities where students would learn about changes in agriculture are frequently shut down or destroyed. The young people who would become agricultural scientists end up drawn into the conflict as soldiers or victims. Long-term economic neglect means that the government has very limited ability to subsidise farming. These problems are present to varying degrees in countries around the world and offer one possible explanation for the continued prevalence of hunger.
The solution that I believe would be most effective is directing humanitarian funds previously focused on food aid towards education and agricultural infrastructure. Food aid is a notoriously poor solution because it only offers an immediate solution and warlords often exploit it to support their continued mistreatment of their people. It hurts more than it helps. However, there would be better long-term effects if international organisations and governments redirected that money into helping build better farms, provide more modern equipment, and sending qualified professions to train people in need. There is a TedTalk by a young man in Kenya who built his own windmill out of old bicycle parts and by reading a book in the local library. It is large enough to power his own house and he was seeking financing for a larger one that would power irrigation channels for the entire village. If more people like him can be found or trained then this will have an impact that lasts for decades and is relatively impervious to the factors preventing agricultural advances from taking root in developing countries.
In conclusion, developing companies face myriad problems that hinder their ability to take advantage of newer agricultural models and we should direct more funding to helping these countries learn more about new farming methods. This is likely to be an important issue in the world as the gap between rich and poor, develop and undeveloped widens while technological progress continues its indifferent march forward.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, so, then, while, in conclusion, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 10.4138276553 163% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 24.0651302605 141% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 41.998997996 124% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2485.0 1615.20841683 154% => OK
No of words: 457.0 315.596192385 145% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.43763676149 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62358717085 4.20363070211 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95597635424 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 266.0 176.041082164 151% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.582056892779 0.561755894193 104% => OK
syllable_count: 778.5 506.74238477 154% => 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: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.4324929277 49.4020404114 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.789473684 106.682146367 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0526315789 20.7667163134 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.05263157895 7.06120827912 43% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.9879759519 201% => Less 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: 0.159060288044 0.244688304435 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0469141461899 0.084324248473 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.044042983488 0.0667982634062 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10155226147 0.151304729494 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0242476160549 0.056905535591 43% => 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: 16.2 13.0946893788 124% => 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: 14.57 12.4159519038 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.32 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 130.0 78.4519038076 166% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 9.78957915832 158% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.