A glance at people’s attitude toward contribution of money to charities, bring to the light a question that has been asked several times, namely, whether wealthier people must help more or not. Although some people may think that the more money you have, the more you should give to poor people, my opinion is completely opposite, and I believe that this claim is not true at all.
The foremost reason why I am supporting this idea, lies in the fact that rich people have a lot of responsibilities and they have to pay for a lot more things. For example, even though a doctor makes more money, s/he has to pay for the office, nurses, secretaries and bills. S/he helps society through her/his knowledge and treat people when they are sick. After a while, he can invest his money to have a more beautiful clinic with better equipment which are necessary for his job. Therefore, we cannot anticipate wealthy people donate their money because they have more money.
Another subtle point that I should deem is the fact that contribution to charity is not the main way to help society. For example, an entrepreneur creates a lot of jobs for citizens which has enormous economical advantages for a country. Likewise, If a businessman just helps poor people and buy food for them, it will not diminish poverty. There is a proverb in our language which is “instead of giving fish to a person, teach him how to catch fish.” Countries with excellent welfare, have profound economy which comes from very low unemployment rate and poverty. If the budget be spent on critical issues include improving education, attracting tourists, increasing of wellbeing and creating democracy, residents are happier. Not only is spending money for poor people wrong, but also it causes more famine. Hence, giving money to charity will not resolve all the problems a country encounter.
Admittedly, if individuals do not help enough to charities, some people will die as a consequence. As a matter of fact, food is one of the basic needs of humankind. Nobody can amend a country’s situation when its people are hungry. Nevertheless, the amount of contribution is not necessarily proportionate to individual’s income. For example, if an attorney salary is ten times more than a clerk, we cannot expect to donate ten times more.
Due to the aforementioned argument explored in the previous statements, I strongly assert that we cannot ask a millionaire to donate his money to a charity because he has more money.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, likewise, may, nevertheless, so, therefore, well, while, as to, for example, as a matter of fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 15.1003584229 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 9.8082437276 122% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 13.8261648746 65% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 43.0788530466 88% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 52.1666666667 75% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.0752688172 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2095.0 1977.66487455 106% => OK
No of words: 421.0 407.700716846 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97624703088 4.8611393121 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52971130743 4.48103885553 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8992792766 2.67179642975 109% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 212.727598566 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565320665083 0.524837075471 108% => OK
syllable_count: 664.2 618.680645161 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.51792114695 227% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.94265232975 40% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.6219245539 48.9658058833 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.75 100.406767564 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.05 20.6045352989 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.9 5.45110844103 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 11.8709677419 93% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.336681116051 0.236089414692 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0983057596624 0.076458572812 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0812587371563 0.0737576698707 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192060264657 0.150856017488 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0859473800086 0.0645574589148 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 11.7677419355 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 58.1214874552 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.1575268817 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 10.9000537634 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.8 8.01818996416 110% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 86.8835125448 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 10.002688172 180% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.