Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: it is important for the government to spend money on things that are beautiful, not just on things that are practical?
To my mind, the balance should be reached it those things. Practical commodities can also be good-looking, which is beneficial for everyone. At first glance, it's hard to see hidden opportunities in things, which are good in both aspects. They can have an impact both on the economy of the country, and on it's residents.
First and foremost, original and creative art objects tend to attract tourists. We have a plenty examples of them, like some celebrated monuments as The Statue of Liberty in New-York, for instance. It merely has some practical use, but vast amounts of travelers visit it every year. Thereby, as I am aknowledged of, tourists bring their currency with them and thus stimulate economic growth. Then, the country is capable of becoming attractive for investors and traders, which will impove economy even more.
Secondly, our life is hard and exhausting. Sometimes, people just need to take a break and enjoy simple things. Extraordinary and good-looking art objects can become a topic for a discussion, or cheer somebody up by casting their memory back to moments, associated with a particular piece of art.
They can even help to create new highlights! People can take photos with them, therefore creating a memorable moment and sharing the location of an exhibition with others.
Last but not least, if government allowed artists to create, it could become an increadible opportunity for them to become famous and share their works with others.
As a conclusion, i agree that practical things should have the leading role, because they are comfortable and beneficial for both parties. However, nothing impedes to make those simple and tedious dwellings and parks more eye-catching and attractive for different groups of people.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 10, column 18, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
...works with others. As a conclusion, i agree that practical things should have...
^
Line 10, column 59, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... agree that practical things should have the leading role, because they are comfo...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, well, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 15.1003584229 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 9.8082437276 102% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 13.8261648746 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 11.0286738351 36% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 43.0788530466 56% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 52.1666666667 61% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.0752688172 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1478.0 1977.66487455 75% => OK
No of words: 284.0 407.700716846 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20422535211 4.8611393121 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.48103885553 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79987813944 2.67179642975 105% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 212.727598566 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.637323943662 0.524837075471 121% => OK
syllable_count: 454.5 618.680645161 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 9.59856630824 83% => OK
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.6003584229 78% => 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: 17.0 20.1344086022 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.7760173846 48.9658058833 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.375 100.406767564 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.75 20.6045352989 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.25 5.45110844103 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.53405017921 132% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 11.8709677419 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.85842293907 26% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88709677419 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.137595673725 0.236089414692 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0393606998028 0.076458572812 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0435231257322 0.0737576698707 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0692122585713 0.150856017488 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0346240666935 0.0645574589148 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 11.7677419355 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 58.1214874552 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.1575268817 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.58 10.9000537634 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.76 8.01818996416 109% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 86.8835125448 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.002688172 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.0537634409 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.