How to spend money in order to make a country great is always a big issue for governments. As far as I am concerned, I tend to disagree with the statement, and I believe spending money on athletic events could bring more benefits for governments. My reasons are as follows.
Governments care about the economic growth of their countries, and putting more budgets on athletic activities is profitable in the long run. To further elaborate, though cultivating state-sponsored Olympic team might be costly at first, once the teams become stronger, more people will notice those teams, and it would definitely bring the economic growth. In 1960s, Japanese government started to take a lot of effort and budgets on their national and Olympic baseball teams. Initially, many people disagreed with the decision government made. But nowadays, the baseball teams in Japan are worldwide famous. Many baseball fans from different countries will intentionally come to Japan just to watch a baseball game and even buy a lot of products of baseball players because they fancy those players. Consequently, baseball events have played an important role in Japan's economy.
In addition, governments want to own high reputation worldwide, and the more budgets in support of athletics, the higher reputation governments could get. To clarify that, sports events are eye-catching events around the world, if a government cultivate their national sports teams, their team can have more chances win the competitions. Accordingly, many sports fans will start to notice the country and want to understand how a government does to make a compelling team. At this time, all of compliments will come. For example, in my country, our government put a lot of effort on training our wrestling Olympic teams. Thus, Our wrestling players are almost able to get champions or secondary awards in every competition. As a result, many worldwide media started to broadcast how our government help our Olympic team win the contest, and our country win a high reputation on training national sports events.
To conclude, I think governments should indeed spend more money on supporting athletics activities, because it is a profitable investment, and a government can gain higher reputation.
- "The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. "According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in a 50
- *TPO32-Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Young people today have no influence on the important decisions that determine the future of society as a whole. 80
- TPO-33 - Integrated Writing Task Carved stone balls are a curious type of artifact found at a number of locations in Scotland. They date from the late Neolithic period, around 4,000 years ago. They are round in shape; they were carved from several types o 75
- TPO-31 - Integrated Writing Task A fossil skeleton of a dinosaur called Sinosauropteryx, preserved in volcanic ash, was discovered in Liaoning, China, in 1996. Interestingly, the fossil included a pattern of fine lines surrounding the skeletal bones. Some 73
- TOEFL T P O 24 - Integrated Writing Task 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 359, Rule ID: IN_1990s
Message: The article is probably missing here: 'In the 1960s'.
Suggestion: In the 1960s
...d definitely bring the economic growth. In 1960s, Japanese government started to take a ...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, consequently, first, if, second, so, thus, for example, i think, in addition, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 15.1003584229 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 9.8082437276 112% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 13.8261648746 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 11.0286738351 9% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 43.0788530466 53% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 52.1666666667 84% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.0752688172 186% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1904.0 1977.66487455 96% => OK
No of words: 360.0 407.700716846 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28888888889 4.8611393121 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35587717469 4.48103885553 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94934079264 2.67179642975 110% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 212.727598566 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.525 0.524837075471 100% => OK
syllable_count: 576.9 618.680645161 93% => 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: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.51792114695 142% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.86738351254 375% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.94265232975 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.2965110399 48.9658058833 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.777777778 100.406767564 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 20.6045352989 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.94444444444 5.45110844103 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 11.8709677419 101% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.85842293907 26% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.19769611509 0.236089414692 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0622612957134 0.076458572812 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0613575163161 0.0737576698707 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143692727127 0.150856017488 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0558104830579 0.0645574589148 86% => OK
automated_readability_index: 13.5 11.7677419355 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 58.1214874552 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 10.9000537634 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.92 8.01818996416 99% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 86.8835125448 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.002688172 115% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.247311828 137% => 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: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.