The author concludes that the major cities should get more financial support because the cultural traditions are preserved and generated in these metropolises. However, personally, small villages may maintain more traditional factors. The support to culture protection should be combined in major cities and small villages. Furthermore, the spirits and other invisible aspects in cultural are also crucial to culture protection.
To begin with, some culture factors in big cities are hard and expensive to be maintained. However, in small villages, the cost to culture maintenance will be considerable lower than in the big cities. For instance, all the hoary architecture need work in maintenance. In huge cities, the worker employee fees are higher and the real estate value are far more higher than small villages. Except for the economic considerations, the rare places in major cities may be used for better benefits, such as hospitals, schools and so on. Taking the large numbers of people in metropolis into consideration, these infrastructures may be more practical and exigent for residents. Therefore, when the same traditional buildings exist in huge cities and small villages, the culture protection in small villages maybe more economical and advisable.
From another perspective, more cultural factors may be remained in villages than in cities. The cities are more vulnerable in battles than villages. The complex politic turmoil, often happened in huge cities, also has negative influences on the culture protection. In small villages, the calm and steady life style are better for culture protection. Some old architectures remain only damaged structure, due to the war. For instance, the temple in Athens, and the old summer palace in Beijing. However, in small villages, some old structures can avoid the war damage.
Furthermore, more traditional factors, such as poetry, literature, and ballad, are inherited invisible, regardless of the area difference. These intangible factors are maintained in small villages easier than in cities, since the life style in huge cities are influenced by modern technology productions. For example, the popular music concert may replace the Shakespeare’s poetry in cities. The novels, like Harry Potter, may replace the Bible story in children’s hands. The fast food and set meal may replace the traditional food in most cases. However, in villages, the music concert is often few, and traditional stories may be talk more, so that the old value and spirits may be inherited more in villages than in cities. The protection for these things doesn’t need much financial support, but education and propagation.
To sum up, both cities and villages have some kind of unique factor on cultural tradition. Small cities may contain more old culture factors in some aspects, and the invisible things need more attention and should be educated to next generation. The financial support may not that important comparing with the invisible propagation. In conclusion, if financial and other methods support are applied to cultural protection, the excellent tradition will be inherited for long.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 356, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'higher' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: higher
...igher and the real estate value are far more higher than small villages. Except for the eco...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, except for, for example, for instance, in conclusion, kind of, such as, in most cases, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 11.3162921348 35% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 7.0 33.0505617978 21% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2680.0 2235.4752809 120% => OK
No of words: 487.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50308008214 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69766713281 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9601453552 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 215.323595506 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.462012320329 0.4932671777 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 847.8 704.065955056 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 18.0 4.99550561798 360% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 12.0 4.38483146067 274% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 23.0359550562 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.5196354539 60.3974514979 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 92.4137931034 118.986275619 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7931034483 23.4991977007 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.21951772744 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.179600104307 0.243740707755 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0614345007338 0.0831039109588 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0585286060252 0.0758088955206 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.13548728367 0.150359130593 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0676774999618 0.0667264976115 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.1392134831 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.32 12.1639044944 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 100.480337079 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.2143820225 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.