Recently, the phenomenon of government expenditure on artistic material and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the cultural value of art is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both consecutive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that increasing investment on issues such as paintings or musical events by officials is a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From the financial standpoint, spending less money on unnecessary assets such as expensive paintings or sculptures by governments can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that restricted sources of income, as well as social emergencies, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered less investment opportunities. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both social priorities and highly appreciated artists apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of cultural expectations, increasing art expenses might increase the consequences culture shock. Moreover, fundamental aspects of buying paintings or producing high budget movies relate to this reality that the demerits of spending money on art pertain to the power of economy. As a tangible example, a scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of reducing art budgets is correlated negatively with people's ideas. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of broadening our horizons.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of cutting art budgets by governments far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of decreasing unnecessary investments prove the significance of financial issues, but also pinpoint social implications.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 6.10837438424 65% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 8.36945812808 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 20.9802955665 91% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 31.9359605911 119% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.75862068966 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1655.0 1207.87684729 137% => OK
No of words: 288.0 242.827586207 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.74652777778 5.00649968141 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 3.92707691288 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.29104944694 2.71678728327 121% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 139.433497537 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.645833333333 0.580463131201 111% => OK
syllable_count: 524.7 379.143842365 138% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 2.0 1.56157635468 128% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.5024630542 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.5279651729 50.4703680194 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.916666667 104.977214359 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 20.9669160288 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.16666666667 7.25397266985 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 6.9802955665 86% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 2.91625615764 137% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.082938938592 0.242375264174 34% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0272239640155 0.0925447433944 29% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0261584583953 0.071462118173 37% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0487722068461 0.151781067708 32% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0204220678744 0.0609392437508 34% => 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: 17.7 12.6369458128 140% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 53.1260098522 57% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 10.9458128079 137% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.37 11.5310837438 142% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.19 8.32886699507 134% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 55.0591133005 211% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.94827586207 146% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.3980295567 112% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.5123152709 114% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 77.7777777778 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 70.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.