Government should reduce their investment in arts, music and painting. Agree or disagree?
Recently, the phenomenon of governmental investments in arts and its corresponding impacts has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of dedicating the budget for artistical purposes is beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that investing in arts and music can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, all field of arts such as music, and cinema can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that merits of developing art, as well as enhancing the happiness in the society, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an experiment which discovered students who are familiar with some courses of arts are more cheerful than their counterparts. Thus beneficial ramification of both increased investment in arts and improving the society morale apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of science, decreasing the financial aids for music and arts may increase the consequences of learning disabilities. Moreover, fundamental aspects of reducing the funds in arts could relate to this reality that the demerits of ignoring arts in educational courses pertain to the weak performance of the learners. As a tangible example, some research undertaken by a university has asserted that the downside of the lack of knowledge about painting is correlated negatively with learning arts. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of the role of improving arts.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I believe that the benefits of increasing investment in arts and music far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of making art more popular in society prove the significance of individuals joy, but also pinpoint artistical view implications.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 465, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... more cheerful than their counterparts. Thus beneficial ramification of both increas...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, may, moreover, so, thus, well, while, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.5418719212 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 8.36945812808 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 5.94088669951 185% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 20.9802955665 91% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 31.9359605911 144% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.75862068966 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1665.0 1207.87684729 138% => OK
No of words: 311.0 242.827586207 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3536977492 5.00649968141 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19942759058 3.92707691288 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13732788747 2.71678728327 115% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 139.433497537 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.604501607717 0.580463131201 104% => OK
syllable_count: 528.3 379.143842365 139% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.57093596059 108% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 0.931034482759 322% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.5024630542 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 47.4540713626 50.4703680194 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.75 104.977214359 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.9166666667 20.9669160288 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.58333333333 7.25397266985 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 6.9802955665 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 2.91625615764 69% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.112346574169 0.242375264174 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0430008838297 0.0925447433944 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.026855354509 0.071462118173 38% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0679706522706 0.151781067708 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0128570834115 0.0609392437508 21% => 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: 16.7 12.6369458128 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 53.1260098522 71% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 10.9458128079 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 11.5310837438 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.26 8.32886699507 123% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 55.0591133005 193% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.94827586207 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.3980295567 115% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.5123152709 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 72.0 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.