There are certain considerations one can take into account when considering and investigating the distribution of government financial support. The statement claims that big cities should receive sufficient money, for the reason that it is the main source of a country's culture. However, I assert that while financial support to metropolitans are of vital importance for their development, rural areas are also un-ignorable, for countrysides also contribute to the traditions of a nation, even greater than cities.
The statement maintains opulent financial support must be provided for major cities' development, and the assumption is that cities plays a vital role in the nation's cultural development. For instance, if one goes to New York, everything he or she encountered there, such as the music, food, and people's lifestyle, are of typically American. These factors are all dispensable components of American culture we know. Thus, it is reasonable to support the thriving of big cities in the US for the country's cultural development as a whole.
From this perspective, this claim seems quite appealing. However, we have to bear it in mind that modernized city culture is just a small part of a nation. When we talk about traditional cultures, rural areas are even more important. This is more obvious for some countries developing. For example, in China, while cities are developing more and more quickly, countrysides are still places where traditional cultures flourish. Many traditional skills such as paper-cutting, are mastered by elderly people who has been living in the rural areas for decades. If these areas are neglected by the government, the chances are these perish traditions will go extinct one day. Obviously, financing big cities are not enough for traditional cultural protection in China.
Furthermore, quite contrary to the statement, thriving of cities can have bad effects on traditional cultures. With the rapid trend of globalization and the more and more accelerated advancement of technology, modern lifestyles are becoming prevalent, and cities around world are much alike due to communication. Beijing, London and New York share the similar building style,and young people in these cities all like pop music. In Beijing, one can easily find western restaurants, and in London, the vice versa. While we are excited by the comfort and convenience brought about by internationalization, our traditional cultures are endangered at the same time. People in large cities are forgetting traditions, needless to say to preserve them. It is obvious that the development of cities are always counteracting with tradition protection. From this perspective, the government should not invest money to the cities in order to preserve the nation's traditions.
Due to the aforementioned ground, although it is undeniable that cities can be a nation's cultural center, other parts of the country are also home to rich cultures, especially traditional ones. I firmly believe supporting major cities financially is not enough for tradition preservation. Every part of the nation where traditions rooted should be protected.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 78, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'cities'' or 'city's'?
Suggestion: cities'; city's
...cial support must be provided for major cities development, and the assumption is that...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 375, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , and
...ew York share the similar building style,and young people in these cities all like p...
^^^^
Line 9, column 80, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a nation' or simply 'nations'?
Suggestion: a nation; nations
...ugh it is undeniable that cities can be a nations cultural center, other parts of the cou...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, so, still, thus, while, as for, for example, for instance, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.5258426966 159% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 12.9106741573 194% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2665.0 2235.4752809 119% => OK
No of words: 487.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.47227926078 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69766713281 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15381293269 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 215.323595506 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.525667351129 0.4932671777 107% => OK
syllable_count: 846.9 704.065955056 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.740449438202 135% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.3703367369 60.3974514979 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.5 118.986275619 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7307692308 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.96153846154 5.21951772744 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.83258426966 269% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.333198008902 0.243740707755 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0952853089337 0.0831039109588 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0723173316632 0.0758088955206 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.200461365857 0.150359130593 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0312225983252 0.0667264976115 47% => 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: 13.7 14.1392134831 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.1639044944 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.84 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 100.480337079 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 Out of 6
---------------------
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.