In many countries, government spent a large amount of money on improving internet access. Why is it happening and do you think it is the most appropriate use of government money?
A huge proportion of national budget is allocated to providing people with easier access to the Internet. There are several reasons for such spending and, in my view, this is not the most suitable way to use state money.
The government understand how the Internet benefits the lives of their citizens and also the limitation of access to the network in a number of places across their countries. The Internet has proven powerful in dispensing educational services and general knowledge about all aspects of life, not to mention the fact that it could facilitate communication between even continents. There is no arguing why governments pay much heed to the development of the network, just as to boost the overall quality of life for their people. Additionally, perhaps the inaccessibility of the Internet in many areas, especially disadvantaged ones for which mountainous villages in Vietnam could be brought up as a prime example, has the government draw a conclusion to pour their money into improving the Internet.
Much as those analyzed points above, I still believe large financial spending on such a field could, sometimes, be seen as unproductive or even counter-productive. In fact, only half of the world population has Internet connection; and even if the government were able to expand the network, it would be, I believe, hardly reachable for the rest of the world for the time being. The result would not be equivalent to the enormous amount of governmental funding. Instead, there are some other areas that authorities could invest in as a pre-requisite complement before supplying a widespread network. Constructing schools and deploying qualified teachers to areas that are used to the absence of the Internet and are unaware of the benefits it might offer could be more promising.
In conclusion, there are two main explanations for governments’ special attention to improving the Internet access; and I think this is not the most optimal way to spend money.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, so, still, as to, i think, in conclusion, in fact, in my view
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 41.998997996 105% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1674.0 1615.20841683 104% => OK
No of words: 322.0 315.596192385 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19875776398 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23607819155 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10491296967 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 176.041082164 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.583850931677 0.561755894193 104% => OK
syllable_count: 523.8 506.74238477 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.384769539078 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 20.2975951904 128% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 49.7273119679 49.4020404114 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.5 106.682146367 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.8333333333 20.7667163134 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.91666666667 7.06120827912 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.268715592283 0.244688304435 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0884460849661 0.084324248473 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0752440297453 0.0667982634062 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.17326612032 0.151304729494 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0743035612488 0.056905535591 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 13.0946893788 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 50.2224549098 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.3001002004 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.4159519038 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.14 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 78.4519038076 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.1190380762 123% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.