Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Governments should focus their budget more on environmental protection than on economic development.
Undoubtedly, environmental protection concern has been a real challenge to the contemporary human. Because what we call modern life is apodictically based on civilization and technological advances and those, in turn, are dependent on economic prosperity and development of countries. This modern contradiction further expanded into an eternal disputation among both laity and subject matter experts: what should a government do about the environment and whether politicians should spend money on preserving the flora and fauna of their country or should they concentrate on net economic growth through developing industries which, most of the time, pollute the atmosphere, land, and water. From my perspective, since technological advancements are an inalienable (undeniable) part of our living and culture, we should not reduce funds on economy. However, since the conservation of planet earth, our only hospitable habitat, is an unquestionable duty, we should protect the earth spirit, the Gaya. In what follows, I will try to adduce my reasons elucidating my stance.
First of all, we should look upon this controversial issue realistically; can we live without our modern gadgets and tools? Absolutely NO. Thus, we need to invest money on economic and specifically on infrastructures which in turn need scores of factories and enterprises to operate at full power. Moreover, as the population increases and the technology advances, our necessities abounds to extreme points; we feel new needs every day. Thus, the problem is not that should we, rather, could we check our wants?
In addition, as a maxim says: “we inherited the earth from our fathers and it is our responsibility to pass this inheritance to our children, without any deficiency or harm.” If we do not take care of our large blue habitat, our offspring should try to understand and feel our magnificent planet through books, photographs, and movies. And by doing that they certainly, miss the euphonious sound of lovebirds, the scenery of meadows, the pulchritude of peacocks, and astonishing blue of the sky. It is high time we eschewed devastating lands, polluting the water, and obfuscating the sky because we have learned enough in the last decades.
In closing the discussion of this matter, I would be remiss in exhausting the subject if I neglected the fact that a balanced policy toward the economics and environment is certainly desirable and efficacious. Human beings should concentrate on developing economic economy with an eye on protection of their environment. They may invest more on the economy with the aim of funding the outcome on environment; what some countries such as the USA have done with flying colors in the last three decades.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, look, may, moreover, so, thus, in addition, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 15.1003584229 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 9.8082437276 163% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 13.8261648746 159% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.0286738351 45% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 45.0 43.0788530466 104% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 52.1666666667 115% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.0752688172 186% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2313.0 1977.66487455 117% => OK
No of words: 433.0 407.700716846 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34180138568 4.8611393121 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56165014514 4.48103885553 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13607158455 2.67179642975 117% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 212.727598566 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.586605080831 0.524837075471 112% => OK
syllable_count: 716.4 618.680645161 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 9.59856630824 146% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.51792114695 171% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.86738351254 268% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.94265232975 162% => 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: 27.0 20.1344086022 134% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 91.6821649895 48.9658058833 187% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.5625 100.406767564 144% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0625 20.6045352989 131% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.3125 5.45110844103 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 11.8709677419 34% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.88709677419 143% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.150929441238 0.236089414692 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0509308046381 0.076458572812 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0611000699062 0.0737576698707 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0987958036093 0.150856017488 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0669645822831 0.0645574589148 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 11.7677419355 147% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 58.1214874552 61% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 6.10430107527 213% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 10.1575268817 148% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.99 10.9000537634 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.57 8.01818996416 119% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 86.8835125448 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 22.0 10.002688172 220% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.0537634409 127% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.247311828 127% => 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: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.