Government spending on restoration of old buildings in cities should be stopped
instead they should spend the money for housing and road development.
do you agree or disagree?
In this globalized eon, without any qualms, it is accepted that Government funding should be used to resolve the basic needs of the local residents like housing and proper road structure. Some people coincide that, it should be used on the renovation of ancient buildings. Howbeit, I debunk from them and proffer that basic facilities should be prioritized before the luxuries.
Compelling evidence is obtainable to demonstrate the notion of how the importance of housing and proper roadway in a city. The paramount concrete reason is good housing is a reflection of a healthy society. To go hand in hand, a supernal rationale which drags me to persist is Well-maintained highway help to have good transportation in the city. To uphold my article of faith, I would jot down an illustration of the increase in population result in people stuck in high-rise buildings and skyscrapers.
What is half full for some, may appear half empty to others, so the public across the board discriminate that ancient buildings are needing to be preserved by funding them in a huge sum, which has a myriad of reasons. To commence with, some people reckon that old buildings are reflections of our culture and heritage, so it needs to be preserved. Withal they also justify that
revamped building will increase our economy in the form of tourism.
To synopsize, I pen down saying that there are innumerable robust factors underpinning the fact that spending on the needs of residents is particularly important. Ergo, its contrary can be overlooked or curbed. Consequently, I firmly agree with the aforementioned statement.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 129, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...ard discriminate that ancient buildings are needing to be preserved by funding them in a hu...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 378, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...preserved. Withal they also justify that revamped building will increase our econ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, if, look, may, so, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 41.998997996 105% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1355.0 1615.20841683 84% => OK
No of words: 264.0 315.596192385 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13257575758 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03089032464 4.20363070211 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01488263991 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 176.041082164 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.613636363636 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 417.6 506.74238477 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => 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: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.4465130187 49.4020404114 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.230769231 106.682146367 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3076923077 20.7667163134 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.30769230769 7.06120827912 47% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => 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: 0.210056175752 0.244688304435 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0611027019932 0.084324248473 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0382741546558 0.0667982634062 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0907603150768 0.151304729494 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0548417748426 0.056905535591 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.0946893788 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 50.2224549098 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.4159519038 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.35 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 78.4519038076 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => 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.