Space travel is fantastic these days, but there are many issues – such as environmental problems – that
we should be focusing on. What are your views on the allocation of public funding?
Recently, the phenomenon of space travel has sparked an ongoing controversy, which inevitably leads to a moot question " Should governments allocate the public funding to space travel?". Whereas, it is a widely held view that governments must remain liable for environmental issues. I will discuss the controversial aspects of that throughout this essay.
From the technological standpoint, space travel is bound up inextricably with public fundings, which indicates they lead to both spacecraft and astronauts. As a well-known example, a longitudinal study conducted by eminent scientists in 2014 demonstrates the relationship between space stations and Mars as well as an exponential increase in modern technologies. Their academic criticism was impressive. Consequently, my empirical evidence presented thus far supports the contention that the likelihood of alternative planets is correlated positively with not only the solar system but also focusing on space travel developments.
Within the realm of the environment, without the slightest doubt, serious issues attribute to environmental problems, in that it would come down to electronic wastes, computers, and earth's resources. A salient example of such attribution is space pollutions, which is a cause of concern since it was mistaken to take climate change for granted. Had there been a paradigm shift earlier, scholars have had the opportunity to pinpoint the ozone layer problems. Likewise, hardly had they confined their attention to global warming, natural habitats, and even nature. Hence, it is correct to infer the pivotal role of the allocation of public funding to space travel.
To conclude, as for myself, as the saying goes "all's well that ends well," after analyzing what elaborated above, I firmly believe that space travel advantages far outweigh its negative issues. However, with the benefit of hindsight we conceive the more we research, the further we discover.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 78, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...ying goes 'alls well that ends well,' after analyzing what elaborated above,...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, hence, however, if, likewise, so, thus, well, whereas, as for, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.5418719212 85% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 6.10837438424 65% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 20.9802955665 110% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 31.9359605911 119% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.75862068966 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1671.0 1207.87684729 138% => OK
No of words: 295.0 242.827586207 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.66440677966 5.00649968141 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 3.92707691288 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14164327002 2.71678728327 116% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 139.433497537 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.671186440678 0.580463131201 116% => OK
syllable_count: 513.9 379.143842365 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.57093596059 108% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.6157635468 130% => OK
Article: 4.0 1.56157635468 256% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 1.71428571429 233% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 3.65517241379 192% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 12.6551724138 111% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.5024630542 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.5622286892 50.4703680194 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.357142857 104.977214359 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0714285714 20.9669160288 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.25397266985 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 6.9802955665 100% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 2.75862068966 109% => 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: 0.216039414805 0.242375264174 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0621995969417 0.0925447433944 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0680426106438 0.071462118173 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11888781433 0.151781067708 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0519913151746 0.0609392437508 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 12.6369458128 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 53.1260098522 78% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.9458128079 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.55 11.5310837438 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.83 8.32886699507 130% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 55.0591133005 209% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.94827586207 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.3980295567 100% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.5123152709 105% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 76.5 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.