In the contemporary world, because of increasing expenses, there is a tendency toward governmental services, which could be extended to various fields from science, to art, or to athletic programs. Some individuals believe that governments should financially aid art programs, while, in contrast, there are other people believing that athletic activities such as state-adherent Olympic teams should receive the whole budget. I opine that the advantages of the latter opinion outweigh those of the former one. The reasons why I believe so are of great manifold--two of which, however, are of great consequence: the existence of art is upon such funds, and athletic programs have enough support to survive.
To begin with, the governmental budget has to allocate to artistic matters if the governments want this field survives in the harsh economic conditions of the modern world. Indeed, the inflation, prompted by bad economics, makes the situation for artists too bad that either normally they lose their jobs, or they are forced to change their field of work. For example, one of my friends who owns an art gallery, being an adept artist himself, faced a predicament around two years ago, which changed his life forever. What happened was the government cut off the aid provided to his art gallery, for they felt that the money was a better use for the town’s soccer team. For this reason, my friend had to fire most of his employees in order that he could keep his business going; subsequent to this action, he regretfully sold his gallery, which was quite celebrated amount young artists, mostly painters and photographers, and opened a bar. Another important aspect of this problem that needs our attention is whether athletics programs do really need such aid.
Furthermore, aside from the vitality of governmental financial funds to arts, the very important factor here is that athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic teams do not need a direct budget from the government, for they are already under the support of their own states, as well as other sponsors who do care about such teams. As a matter of fact, teams that play in national levels receive various financial aids from different sources since a win-result for the team would mean a lot of income for such sponsors. For instance, according to the Olympic committee, every team that can enter every stage of the games would receive around one-million dollars; more importantly, the winner in every field, in additional, would receive a prize of fifty-million dollars. In correspondence to the Committee’s rules, every sponsor would receive a ten percent of the total amount of money received by the team, which is an adequate impetus for more sponsors to step forward to support athletics teams from the very beginning.
In conclusion, governments should distribute money in the support of arts instead of wasting it on that of the athletics programs. Among assorted reasons, two are usually very important: governmental funds are vital for art’s existence and athletics programs do not need such funds. It is also predictable that should governments cut art’s support, the society would face the consequences of such decision, which would severe in many aspects.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 783, Rule ID: SUBSEQUENT_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'after'
Suggestion: after
... that he could keep his business going; subsequent to this action, he regretfully sold his ga...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, really, so, well, while, as to, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, in contrast, such as, as a matter of fact, as well as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 15.1003584229 119% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 9.8082437276 163% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 13.8261648746 43% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 20.0 11.0286738351 181% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 43.0788530466 91% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 52.1666666667 132% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.0752688172 149% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2732.0 1977.66487455 138% => OK
No of words: 526.0 407.700716846 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19391634981 4.8611393121 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78901763229 4.48103885553 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85558671993 2.67179642975 107% => OK
Unique words: 285.0 212.727598566 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.541825095057 0.524837075471 103% => OK
syllable_count: 829.8 618.680645161 134% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 12.0 4.94265232975 243% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.6003584229 83% => 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: 30.0 20.1344086022 149% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 59.0515580251 48.9658058833 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 160.705882353 100.406767564 160% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.9411764706 20.6045352989 150% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.2941176471 5.45110844103 207% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => 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: 0.192207355385 0.236089414692 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0748594001137 0.076458572812 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0779284499686 0.0737576698707 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143341829712 0.150856017488 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0789215577337 0.0645574589148 122% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.5 11.7677419355 157% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 58.1214874552 71% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 10.1575268817 148% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 10.9000537634 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.01818996416 113% => OK
difficult_words: 130.0 86.8835125448 150% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.002688172 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 10.0537634409 139% => 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: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.