In today’s sluggish economic conditions, most people have been suffering from monetary crises in various parts of the world. It is undeniable that the economy is one of the countries’ outstanding infrastructures that has a great influence on other sections like education, literature, culture, etc., therefore it seems that societies should manage and weigh the cons and pros of their available sources to deal with the crisis. It is opined by some that governments should pay much more attention to urban green spaces while this essay is trying to refute this notion. Throughout the following paragraphs, among the most predominant reasons in support of this contention making money and the existence of other alternative solutions will be meticulously scrutinized to advocate this standpoint.
To commence with, in times of a monetary crisis, governments concentrate their focuses on the sectors that are more profitable. Societies’ existence will rely on the decisions made regarding their examinations and cost management. Spending attention to some areas will be more reasonable and make more money than. A vivid example can be given to shed light on what has elaborated above. Here, I depict one of my own experiences. Recently, some sanctions have been experienced in IRAN that made some nasty problems in people’s lives. The authority decided to encourage youngsters at schools and colleges to expend their energy and effort on some specific sections more than others. Progressing in the Art and scientific research scopes led to pass that transition point. Accordingly, in most of the hectic situations allocating funds to Arts and scientific research can be more benefits. Not only does it makes more money, but also attracts tourists that readily depicts our history and culture.
Furthermore, in the occurrence of stagnation naturally, people scramble to gain more revenue, therefore they have less time for entertainment and recreational facilities. Besides this, paying less concentration to some fields or ignoring them will probably have inevitable consequences on future generations. To more clarify the condition, I mention the outcome of one fieldwork conducted at Harvard School to probe the role of some factors during recession eras. The results of the eight-year study revealed that administrations which, constructed public gardens to soothe people’s mind and relieve the stress among them, not only waste their endeavors and budgets but also it causes to feel dependency on other countries to afford their survivals and stay out of the today’s fast-growing world.
To recapitulate, I pen down saying that in most of the hectic situations like recession, stagnation, etc. governments should assign much more budget and focus to the arts and scientific research than urban green spaces if they want to prosper their countries.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 904, Rule ID: DOES_NP_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'make'?
Suggestion: make
... can be more benefits. Not only does it makes more money, but also attracts tourists ...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 904, Rule ID: DOES_X_HAS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'make'? As 'do' is already inflected, the verb cannot also be inflected.
Suggestion: make
... can be more benefits. Not only does it makes more money, but also attracts tourists ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 686, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'feeling'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'cause' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: feeling
...ndeavors and budgets but also it causes to feel dependency on other countries to afford...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 260, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...f they want to prosper their countries.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, besides, but, furthermore, if, regarding, so, therefore, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 15.1003584229 73% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 13.8261648746 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.0286738351 100% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 43.0788530466 84% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 52.1666666667 130% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.0752688172 198% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2423.0 1977.66487455 123% => OK
No of words: 444.0 407.700716846 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.45720720721 4.8611393121 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5903493882 4.48103885553 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0057595269 2.67179642975 112% => OK
Unique words: 260.0 212.727598566 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.585585585586 0.524837075471 112% => OK
syllable_count: 743.4 618.680645161 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 9.59856630824 52% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.51792114695 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.94265232975 202% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.7293962932 48.9658058833 144% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.15 100.406767564 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2 20.6045352989 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.05 5.45110844103 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8709677419 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.153406798039 0.236089414692 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.043202475796 0.076458572812 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0395304458449 0.0737576698707 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0946200210356 0.150856017488 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0170574121663 0.0645574589148 26% => 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: 15.4 11.7677419355 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 58.1214874552 70% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.1575268817 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.39 10.9000537634 132% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.1 8.01818996416 126% => OK
difficult_words: 151.0 86.8835125448 174% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.002688172 150% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.247311828 146% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.