Millions of dollar are spent on space research each year. Some people argue that the money should be spent on improving living standards on earth. Do you agree or disagree ?
Monetary disbursements on space research have been highlighted as an emerging issue, capturing significant public attention in recent decades. Given its pronounced positive impacts, I believe that official authorities should also fund other public sectors equally to guarantee living standards worldwide.
Space research could bestow many considerable benefits. First, due to practices of resource exploitation and emission of exhausted fumes stemming from the industrialization process, the earth have been met with irreversible environmental consequences, making it gradually inhabitable. In fact, investments into space projects and space scientists would accelerate the process of finding alternative planets for humans’ new civilization, preventing them from the brink of extinction. Second, expenditure on space research could enable scientists to develop more advanced technologies, which would monitor the patterns of asteroids and other abnormal astronautical activities. This means that space scientists could easily detect outerspace menaces, thereby taking emergency measures, preventing the earth from being crashed.
On the other hand, governments should inject funds into other public sectors for citizens’ better living standards. First, if official authorities, especially those in developing and underdeveloped ones undertake initiatives to promote the agricultural sectors, the produce yields will be stable. Consequently, the food securities are ensured, pulling poor citizens out from the circle of extreme poverty. In addition, better living standards manifest through the installment of reliable public infrastructure, which could only be achieved by higher public fund injections. For example, in order to reduce illiteracy rates, more educational institutions should be built with the recruitment of qualified teachers and provision of modern teaching equipment, which would outfit students with empirical knowledge and vocational skills, improving their employment prospects, which equals better living standards.
In conclusion, I disagree that government should omit space research and focus on other sectors when it comes to funding. Every sector including space reasearch should be funded on an equal basis to guarantee the final living standards for human development in the long term.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 77, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d inject funds into other public sectors for citizens' better living standar...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, if, second, so, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 24.0651302605 50% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2017.0 1615.20841683 125% => OK
No of words: 321.0 315.596192385 102% => OK
Chars per words: 6.28348909657 5.12529762239 123% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23278547379 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13781557598 2.80592935109 112% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 176.041082164 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.647975077882 0.561755894193 115% => OK
syllable_count: 606.6 506.74238477 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.6302723961 49.4020404114 127% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.071428571 106.682146367 135% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9285714286 20.7667163134 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.85714285714 7.06120827912 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.175108044228 0.244688304435 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0633353872446 0.084324248473 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0358440826274 0.0667982634062 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115090321196 0.151304729494 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0352729866333 0.056905535591 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.6 13.0946893788 150% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 23.77 50.2224549098 47% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 19.44 12.4159519038 157% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.42 8.58950901804 133% => OK
difficult_words: 136.0 78.4519038076 173% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 9.78957915832 133% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.