A rise in the standard of living in a country often only seems to benefit cities rather than rural areas. What problems might this difference causes? How might these problems be reduced?
Living Standard Inequality between urban areas and rural ones has been highlighted as an emerging issue in recent decades, sparking significant public controversy. However, identifying problems ensuing could be the key to finding solutions.
Living standard differences could be fraught with many negative ramifications. First, a country’s better living standards are invariably associated with economic advancements, achieved by the proliferation of industrial parks, which would usually installed into rural areas rather than urban ones. This means that rural citizens would be susceptible to the increased concentration of exhausted fumes stemming from these manufacturing factories, leveling their vulnerabilities to airborne diseases such as lung cancer and tuberculosis. Second, due to governmental budget disbursements and foreign investments, cities have become an employment hub, attracting an enormous number of rural citizens, migrating for better occupational prospects. Subsequently, workforce in countryside regions have been underqualified because of brain drain, making the rise of unemployment proportions of these areas an inevitable product.
However, official authorities could take steps to address these issues. First, in order to reduce the micro particles from industrial factories inhaled daily by rural citizens, official authorities should legislate the imposition of carbon tax. By setting specific taxation levels based on each amount of carbon emitted, factories would think twice before releasing carelessly due to the financial burdens they incur, thereby reversing the environmental deterioration. In addition, if governments could channel the foreign investments and public budget into rural areas, employment opportunities could be generated. For example, Vietnamese countryside regions have received significant monetary injections from many international corporations thanks to government policies, leading to the booming of service and business sectors, reducing unemployment rates considerably in these regions.
In conclusion, this inequality pattern could cause both environmental and occupational issues. However, by better government policies, these problems could be combatted easily.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 558, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...reign investments and public budget into rural areas, employment opportunities co...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, second, so, for example, in addition, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 7.30460921844 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 24.0651302605 42% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 41.998997996 90% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1947.0 1615.20841683 121% => OK
No of words: 300.0 315.596192385 95% => OK
Chars per words: 6.49 5.12529762239 127% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.25463600969 2.80592935109 116% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 176.041082164 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.646666666667 0.561755894193 115% => OK
syllable_count: 599.4 506.74238477 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.0 1.60771543086 124% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => 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: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.0937800031 49.4020404114 134% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.071428571 106.682146367 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4285714286 20.7667163134 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.71428571429 7.06120827912 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.209991512226 0.244688304435 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0703338787844 0.084324248473 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0403703782686 0.0667982634062 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126381701151 0.151304729494 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0362539837004 0.056905535591 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.9 13.0946893788 152% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 16.32 50.2224549098 32% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 11.3001002004 143% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 20.36 12.4159519038 164% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.31 8.58950901804 132% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 78.4519038076 161% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 9.78957915832 133% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 20.0 10.7795591182 186% => 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.