Wealthy nations should assist poorer countries with humanitarian relief during natural disasters.
Do you agree or disagree?
Many debate whether rich countries should help developing nations by releasing funds in natural calamities. This essay agrees with the statement because wealthy nations have some of the best emergency medical treatments and the aid can help improve relationship between two countries which is beneficial in long run.
Catastrophes can occur anywhere and anytime in the world, but a developed society can cop up with aftermath. However, an impoverished nation may find itself in chaos because of lack of resources. In natural disasters, first priority of any community is to stop as much causality as possible and this will be a humongous task without hand-in medical care. The earthquake in South Asia in 2001 had at least 20000 people killed instantly but so many lives were saved as the wealthy nations had sent immediate relief in form of medicines, medical staff, household items, and monetary aid. This had not only resulted in less causality but had also helped South Asian counties to come out of trauma and rehabilitate the society.
Other advantage is for both nations as the relationship between them will progress. It is vital for rich nations too to maintain relations with other countries because world economy is co-dependent; and while developing states may not have enough economic reserve, they have natural resources which are raw material for many industries. For example, the welfare by Scandinavians in 2001 earthquake had led to a new start between India and the union. India has committed to supply coal to these nations which is a scarce material in that region. The coal is only source to run their hydro power plants in winters.
In conclusion, humanitarian funds in any form can result into well-being of both counties as the developing countries can save their citizens and the rich counterpart can establish a liaison to help its community in longer run. So the welfare will have positive outcome for both countries in future.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-16 | Reena93 | 78 | view |
| 2019-02-14 | Neelam Macwan | 84 | view |
- The development of tourism contributed to English becoming the most prominent language in the world. Some people think that this will lead to English becoming the only language to be spoken globally.What are the advantages and disadvantages of having one 84
- Writing task 1You recently read an article in a newspaper about your childhood friend with whom you have lost contact for a long time. Write a letter to the editor. In your letter:•Say which edition and when did the article appear•Explain why you lost 73
- Is freedom of speech necessary in a free society?Give reasons for your answer. 73
- Many countries want to host international sports events, while other countries think that hosting sports events has more problems than benefits.Discuss both views and give your opinion. 89
- Some scientists think that there are intelligent life forms on other planets and message should be sent out to contact them. Others think that it is a bad idea and would be dangerous.Discuss both views and give your own opinion. 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun debate seems to be countable; consider using: 'Many debates'.
Suggestion: Many debates
Many debate whether rich countries should help deve...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 48, Rule ID: ADVISE_VBG[5]
Message: The verb 'help' is used with infinitive: 'to develop' or 'develop'.
Suggestion: to develop; develop
...bate whether rich countries should help developing nations by releasing funds in natural c...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 290, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...ave positive outcome for both countries in future.
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, may, so, well, while, at least, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 24.0651302605 50% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 41.998997996 105% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 8.3376753507 12% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1646.0 1615.20841683 102% => OK
No of words: 321.0 315.596192385 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1277258567 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23278547379 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72677332163 2.80592935109 97% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 176.041082164 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.570093457944 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 513.9 506.74238477 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.2365877691 49.4020404114 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.571428571 106.682146367 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9285714286 20.7667163134 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.07142857143 7.06120827912 86% => 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 : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
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: 0.17329740007 0.244688304435 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0552695402964 0.084324248473 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0472200912202 0.0667982634062 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109910118612 0.151304729494 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0575512093421 0.056905535591 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.0946893788 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 50.2224549098 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.4159519038 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.58950901804 105% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 78.4519038076 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => 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.