TPO 54 independent- agree or not? governments should spend more money in support of the arts than in support of athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic games.
The development of contries has diverse dimensions which each government must support in order to increase its situtaion nationwide and internationally. In this context, there are mutually exclusive ideas regarding whether focusing financially on arts is more substantial or investing more on sports-related issues. From my point of view, I am inclined to the latter idealization in spite of the fact that the former has more aficionados among adults. My answer to this debating bone of contention is twofold. In the following, the rationale behind it will be elaborated by the most outstanding, solid proofs.
The first and foremost reason which is worth mentioning is that this strategy will positively influence individuals' overall health statuses. Provided that governments found different sports and facilitate their ways into citizens' daily lives, individuals will gradually get used to exercising even amateurish. As an illustration, Norway's politicians have decided to increase their sports' ministery's budget for 10% every year from 2010. This decision has led to a great increase in Norwegians health statuse. As the researchers of Oslo University recognized, the demand of medical treatments in their country will have decreased drastically by the end of 2050 if their government continue soporting that ministery. In contrast, Egypt's government does not believe in the power of sports; therefore, the budget of their sports' ministry is relatively low in comparison with Norway. This inclination has drained their government's income which has to spend 200 million dollars every year due to bad health status of their dwellers.
The second and equally far-reaching explanation to bear in mind is that sports are considered as a suitable representative of a nation which can improve a countries reputation globally among high-leveled countries. To put it into a more vivid picture, China's main international strategy is to be known as the most successful country in the world, so in Olympic games they always try their best to collect as many medals as possible. This notion has helped this country to introduce itself as a successful and powerful country among other developed ones, such as USA and Great Britain. On the other hand, India mostly focuses on the improvement of its artistic issues and does not think of winning in Olympic games at all. Even though their population is approximately the same as China, their obtained medals are not even as one fifth as Chinese. This has led to a bad impression of this country in international meetings, like annual meeting of UN. All other well-developed countries think less of India because of its defects in diverse sports.
In conclusion, taking all the aforementioned rationalizations and facts into account, I insist that focusing on sports is more beneficial for countries although there are some exceptions which can be excluded from the general rule. To recapitulate my opinions, this focus not only can result in the gradual improvement of the health rates of citizens but also helps countries to be acknowledged as powerful and successful internationally.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 156, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'countries'' or 'country's'?
Suggestion: countries'; country's
...ntative of a nation which can improve a countries reputation globally among high-leveled ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, regarding, second, so, therefore, well, as to, in conclusion, in contrast, such as, in spite of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 15.1003584229 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 13.8261648746 80% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.0286738351 100% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 43.0788530466 88% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 52.1666666667 138% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.0752688172 173% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2645.0 1977.66487455 134% => OK
No of words: 493.0 407.700716846 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36511156187 4.8611393121 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71206996034 4.48103885553 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10905378765 2.67179642975 116% => OK
Unique words: 270.0 212.727598566 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547667342799 0.524837075471 104% => OK
syllable_count: 822.6 618.680645161 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 9.59856630824 94% => OK
Article: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.94265232975 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6003584229 102% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.9937516954 48.9658058833 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.952380952 100.406767564 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4761904762 20.6045352989 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.47619047619 5.45110844103 119% => 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 : 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: 0.0834477196759 0.236089414692 35% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.024179943399 0.076458572812 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0293669218916 0.0737576698707 40% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0516967761376 0.150856017488 34% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0318522372808 0.0645574589148 49% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 11.7677419355 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 58.1214874552 68% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 10.1575268817 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 10.9000537634 130% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.49 8.01818996416 118% => OK
difficult_words: 147.0 86.8835125448 169% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => 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: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.