In the modern era, the role of government in society, the scope of its functions and the legitimacy of its decisions have been constantly disputable among academicians and officials. Some commentators strongly concur with the idea that government should support scientific researches notwithstanding their being practical, while others contradict this point of view by suggesting other methods of investment in the realm of scientific researches. I am personally inclined toward the second point of view and I will elaborate on my opinion by the following conspicuous paragraphs.
First and foremost, the more governments allocate their financial resources to practical research projects, the better and more reliable feedbacks they will receive from their societies. The results of a recent study conducted by the Harvard Law School in the field of law and economics in 2014 demonstrates that there is a positive correlation between conducting practical research and the economic growth in any society. According to this study, the countries which have invested in performing scientific researches by applying a more pragmatic method, have gained a higher percentage of Gross National Product (GNP) which is regarded a key factor in the development of a country. This obviously indicates that governments should take the practical character of researches and academic movements in their countries into account in order to have a sustainable and gradual development.
The second reason which is worth some words is that the governments can economize on their budgets by eliminating funds devoted to studies which have no use and accordingly no efficiency and by injecting these funds to other areas of action within the country such as sports, arts, and employment. The result of a survey done by the New York Times in Washington D.C. and California proves that 68 percents of people have tendency toward having more spaces for sportive exercises, artistic activities and better job opportunities rather than having the possibility of enjoying other standards and factors including the mere academic or abstracts debates and researches which will bring no prosperity or accomplishments for the society and the youth.
Eventually, as it is obvious from the aforementioned reasons, one can simply realize that investing in non-practical researches cannot be a reasonable or rational point of view and is defendable in no way. As a conclusion, I dramatically disagree with the latter idea based on the reasons I presented and other reasons which could not be addressed for the dearth of time.
- If people have the opportunity to get a secure job, they should take it right away rather than wait for a job that would be more satisfying 70
- Because people are busy doing so many different things, they do very few things well. 71
- TPO 39 - Independent taskDo you agree or disagree with the following statement?In the past it was easier to identify what type of career or job would lead to a secure, successful future.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 90
- Workers are more satisfied when they have many different types of tasks to do during the workday than when they do similar tasks all day long. 73
- Tpo 53 Do you agree or disagree with the statement that governments should spend more money to improve internet access not on public transportation? 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 366, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...by the New York Times in Washington D.C. and California proves that 68 percents o...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, first, if, second, so, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 15.1003584229 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 13.8261648746 159% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 43.0788530466 56% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 52.1666666667 107% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.0752688172 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2189.0 1977.66487455 111% => OK
No of words: 404.0 407.700716846 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41831683168 4.8611393121 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48327461151 4.48103885553 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10015933354 2.67179642975 116% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 212.727598566 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564356435644 0.524837075471 108% => OK
syllable_count: 673.2 618.680645161 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 9.59856630824 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 3.08781362007 259% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.94265232975 40% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 20.6003584229 53% => 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: 36.0 20.1344086022 179% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 82.5181172193 48.9658058833 169% => OK
Chars per sentence: 199.0 100.406767564 198% => OK
Words per sentence: 36.7272727273 20.6045352989 178% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.54545454545 5.45110844103 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 11.8709677419 42% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.241144207895 0.236089414692 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0844160836377 0.076458572812 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0619144318469 0.0737576698707 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128740052294 0.150856017488 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0347683823499 0.0645574589148 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 22.5 11.7677419355 191% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 26.48 58.1214874552 46% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.10430107527 213% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.5 10.1575268817 182% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.75 10.9000537634 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.62 8.01818996416 132% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 86.8835125448 153% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.002688172 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 16.4 10.0537634409 163% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.247311828 146% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 Out of 30
---------------------
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.