When you give money to the charitable organizations, would you prefer to choose how the donation will be used (for example, donate money on food, service or advertisement for organizations) or leave the decision to the organizations?
The first major reason lies in the professionalism in doing charity work. Consisted by experts majored in philanthropy, the agents are capable to cover all the trivial tasks in helping the miserable. What matters most are where and how to offer the special money, both rather vexing. Therefore, staffs with abundant working experience in those establishments are on top of these issues, ensuring the effective aid in relieving the problems. The opposite is individuals in this field. When encountering the huge amount of money, many would be in a mess without enough energy to make the detailed plan. It always comes out that the whole project will be a failure. The celebrity Hanhong is the best example. Instead of hiring experts to manage the money from donors, she decided to be self-centered in the helping events. What she did not expect was the overwhelming workload in the charity. Not only were the candidates on helping list hard to contact, but also the processes during the assisting were countless to track. She only ended up with sacrificing her health in dealing the issues, which is totally unnecessary if the specialized institutes were engaged.
Also, through officials the bailout projects deem to be more balanced. Private helpers’ focus may give to the field they concerned most especially the heated topics like rural education or empty nesters. Unlike them, the officials take all aspects into consideration and thus the funs can be allocated in an even way rather than disproportionate. Recently, the social media has propagandized the scarcity of primary school teachers in a remote village, which has earned much attention and altruistic money from individuals. However, the other issues are still in urgent need of help like the refugees from war zone or starving children, which to some extent are severer but seldom draw the public’s attention or the funds.
Furthermore, some may oppose the official management in saying that the institutions are notorious for corruption or pocketing public money. It must be clarified that this only happen to those without supervision and who can give a confirmation to private funding? The similar incidents would emerge even be more under the same bug. The settlement roots in the authority control not passing the buck to private person-oriented charity.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-09-24 | LAPLACE DEMON | 76 | view |
| 2021-09-24 | LAPLACE DEMON | 85 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Children should spend most of their time studying or playing they should not be required to help the family with household chores such as cooking etc 94
- Imagine that you have been given the opportunity to advise the government of a city or region area that you are familiar with to spend more money on ONE thing to benefit the city or region Which ONE of these do you believe would be the most beneficial for 48
- cheatgrass 80
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Economy growth should not be slowed down by concerns about environment 76
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement It is a waste of money for governments to fund space travel or space exploration 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 302, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in an even way" with adverb for "even"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...tion and thus the funs can be allocated in an even way rather than disproportionate. Recently,...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, still, therefore, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 15.1003584229 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.0286738351 82% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 43.0788530466 37% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 52.1666666667 100% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.0752688172 111% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1958.0 1977.66487455 99% => OK
No of words: 376.0 407.700716846 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20744680851 4.8611393121 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40348946061 4.48103885553 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87920279539 2.67179642975 108% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 212.727598566 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.632978723404 0.524837075471 121% => OK
syllable_count: 614.7 618.680645161 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 9.0 3.08781362007 291% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.94265232975 40% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6003584229 102% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.1344086022 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.4330338095 48.9658058833 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.2380952381 100.406767564 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9047619048 20.6045352989 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.57142857143 5.45110844103 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.53405017921 66% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 11.8709677419 76% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.113070003532 0.236089414692 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0291636541174 0.076458572812 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.034928450974 0.0737576698707 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0745027729449 0.150856017488 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0234751486043 0.0645574589148 36% => 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: 12.1 11.7677419355 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 58.1214874552 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.1575268817 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.64 10.9000537634 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.6 8.01818996416 120% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 86.8835125448 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.0537634409 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.