Rich countries often give money to poorer countries, but it does not solve poverty.
Therefore, developed countries should give other types of help to the poor countries rather than financial aid.
The past few years have witnessed the burgeoning growth of globalisation and people from the flourished nations tend to help those from the third world from the financial aspect. The debate over whether we should encourage this form of help or not remains a controversial issue. The advocates of the financial aid opine that only money is able to resolve urgent demands whereas critics argue that corruption may be resulted from this. From my personal perspective, this matter has brought both beneficial and adverse effects. The discussion of this topic deserves proper scrunitisation before forming any judgement.
To embark on, there are various rationales why this radical approach to financial aid is so popular. Apparently, money is the most convenient mode of help while other approaches such as food and clothes donation will take time for transportation, not to mention that food might get spoiled after a certain period. Apart from this, this means of donation can fuel the economy and boost growth from many aspects. Therefore, in lots of scenarios, rich countries are motivated to accelerate their efforts towards money donation.
On the contrary, I do not accord on the aforesaid methodology to a certain extent. There can also be detrimental impacts triggered by this trend that are worth mentioning. First and foremost, the conventional means of donation has become an ardent habit of many countries. Whilst some parties and authorities tend to show a preference for money, lots of people from affluent or middle class, especially those in Africa, are seen desperately expecting food donation, as money, in this occasion, does not mean much to them. Besides, this matter has not only brought up criticism of the poor but also sparked anger from the donors as corruptions happened rather frequently. This is, hence, really a worrisome matter for the ones who are in need.
To conclude, the notion of the donors giving money is indeed adventurous, but proper monitoring and reporting should be given to avoid untoward consequences. Government and individuals should make collective efforts against corruption. Indeed, these measures are highly required to curb this problem as a stitch in time saves nine.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2018-12-19 | domydungg@gmail.com | 89 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 280, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...p or not remains a controversial issue. The advocates of the financial aid opine th...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, besides, but, first, hence, may, really, so, therefore, third, whereas, while, apart from, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1874.0 1615.20841683 116% => OK
No of words: 356.0 315.596192385 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26404494382 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34372677135 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80750522622 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 176.041082164 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.623595505618 0.561755894193 111% => OK
syllable_count: 574.2 506.74238477 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.6368503285 49.4020404114 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.111111111 106.682146367 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7777777778 20.7667163134 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.38888888889 7.06120827912 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.141136899864 0.244688304435 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0392859107323 0.084324248473 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0460191073302 0.0667982634062 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0821799411772 0.151304729494 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0297539084506 0.056905535591 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.0946893788 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 50.2224549098 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.3001002004 95% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.4159519038 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.32 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 78.4519038076 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.