Authoritative bodies should spend their time tackling current issues rather than working on future hypotheticals
Authoritative bodies should actively work more on problems at hand rather than wasting time around future hypotheticals. Tackling current issues must be prioritized as these might lead to immediate consequences. This would further be beneficial as it frees up time for planning future activities. I completely agree with this notion that tackling current issues must be allocated more time.
To start off, prioritizing upcoming activities is way more practical than working upon issues that might present themselves in the future. It can be aptly said that working out issues at the time will put you in the best spot for future. A real-life scenario is the covid-19 pandemic. Government authorities have two important things to deal with - saving patients’ lives by allocating more beds in hospitals and to develop overall immunity in the population. Worrying less about the overall immunity initially, the government took quick actions by announcing lock-downs across the nation thus preventing excessive spread of the virus. After a stabilizing the situation, they worked upon vaccination drives which was a long-term issue. This way dealing with the current situations efficiently, a dangerous situation was prevented.
Moving on to an international scenario, we can see how the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals have been stated. They state to curb pollution and climate change urgently and try to reach the goal of carbon neutrality over the long term. If we act accordingly and limit the pollution and effects of climate change presently, then we can set forth to carbon-neutrality. To summarize, taking action on current issues and prioritizing the over future hypotheticals is simply more practical and has set out many successful examples. Although dealing with future tends to be important in certain fields like - urban planning, nothing can be achieved is current issues are not properly dealt with
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, if, then, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 11.3162921348 35% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 33.0505617978 51% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 58.6224719101 73% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1628.0 2235.4752809 73% => OK
No of words: 299.0 442.535393258 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.44481605351 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.55969084622 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0113415707 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 215.323595506 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.638795986622 0.4932671777 130% => OK
syllable_count: 503.1 704.065955056 71% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => 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: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.16784531 60.3974514979 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 101.75 118.986275619 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6875 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.6875 5.21951772744 32% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.97078651685 60% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.272471830212 0.243740707755 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0818729086684 0.0831039109588 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0950575825667 0.0758088955206 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.191425055847 0.150359130593 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.127294750353 0.0667264976115 191% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.1392134831 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.1639044944 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.28 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 100.480337079 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
More content wanted.
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.