Should wealthy nations be required to share their wealth among poorer
nations by providing such things as food and education? Or is it the
responsibility of the governments of poorer nations to look after their
citizens themselves?
You should write at least 250 words.
Use your own ideas, knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples
and with relevant evidence.
There is a debate that whether rich countries must provide many things for poorer ones or let their government take care them as it is their must-to-do things. To me, I do not strongly stand on what specific side. I think nurturing the citizens is the main mission of their government but wealthy countries should also give a hand with some stuffs supply only for those who have shortage of natural resources.
First of all, poor nations usually suffer famine, drought or many disasters all the time. They really need support from other countries. Even though each country have their own vision, mission and responsibility for their civilization, the scarcity of nature lead them to impoverishment. Consequently, they want to be independent but the conditions do not let them accomplish.
Secondly, the undeveloped countries do not have enough educated people to teach children since they all concentrate on survival first. Therefore, they can not update with the world, their vision will be narrow and they never catch others. That is why the wealthy nations should aid in widening their knowledge. In spite of giving them all the things such as food, fruit, clean water, drugs…, training them to facing with the problems and how to search for solutions are better methods.
On the other hand, not all the countries become poor because of disasters. For instance, Japan have suffered a hundred of tsunami disasters but it is still a developed country, even the top one. Therefore, rich countries should not give a great deal of things in many fields to the poorer. These actions will make the government and people in undeveloped nations dependent and completely lean on the givers. Once nations parasite the wealthier nations, there is an existence risk to lose their sovereignty as a result of unfair deal between a shark and a quarry. Another reason is that if people get all things they want, they will not have any purpose for working. Their countries will gradually decrease and can not be risen up anymore. Hence, the givers should only supply enough the poor’s demand when their need is extremely essential.
To sum up, wealthy nations should sympathize with the deficient ones by assisting them with daily stuffs and education but still can let them stand on their feet. Unless poor nations figure out the problems that they are facing with, they will never begin to improve and develop.
- Living in a country where you have to speak a foreign language can cause serious social problems, as well as practical problems.To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? 73
- Compared to the past more people are now studying abroad because it is more convenient and cheaper than before Do you think this is beneficial to the foreign student s home country Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion 81
- Some people believe that nowadays we have too many choices. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? 78
- You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.Present a written argument or case to an educated reader with no specialist knowledge of thefollowing topic:News editors decide what to broadcast on television and what to print in newspapers. What factors do 84
- You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.Present a written argument or case to an educated reader with no specialist knowledge of the following topic:News editors decide what to broadcast on television and what to print in newspapers. What factors d 56
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, hence, if, really, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, for instance, i think, such as, as a result, first of all, in spite of, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 7.85571142285 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 15.0 10.4138276553 144% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 24.0651302605 158% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2011.0 1615.20841683 125% => OK
No of words: 402.0 315.596192385 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00248756219 5.12529762239 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47771567384 4.20363070211 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56007375369 2.80592935109 91% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 176.041082164 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.537313432836 0.561755894193 96% => OK
syllable_count: 595.8 506.74238477 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 5.43587174349 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 16.0721442886 131% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.0277681394 49.4020404114 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.7619047619 106.682146367 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1428571429 20.7667163134 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.09523809524 7.06120827912 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.9879759519 201% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.200285703328 0.244688304435 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0633347396738 0.084324248473 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0565667560737 0.0667982634062 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124858502963 0.151304729494 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0303071134685 0.056905535591 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.0946893788 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 50.2224549098 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.3001002004 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 12.4159519038 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.0 8.58950901804 93% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 78.4519038076 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 10.7795591182 74% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.