Government should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.
Rational planning on tackling important issues including imminent and anticipated ones is no doubt crucial to run a country well because human and natural resources are limited. The statement suggests that government should put most resources on solving the incoming or present problems instead of the anticipated ones. I partially agree with the claim because it suits in some cases, but fails in some other cases.
A country has to put everything like money, time, natural resources on the present issue when this issue is threatening the survival of the country even if the government knows it will sacrifice the development of the country. For instance, the Chinese people fought against the Japanese invaders at the cost of everything during the Second World War. In order to evict the Japanese army, the Chinese made use of anything they can use regardless of the death of the Chinese people, the damage of the environment, the waste of natural resources, and the development of education and technology: millions of Chinese people died; cities, roads, and mountains were burnt into ashes; oil and iron mines were exploited without restraint; students and scientists joined the army. This example illustrates a simple and obvious consensus that nothing is more important than the survival of a country, without which it is meaningless to talk about the anticipated problems of the future.
Furthermore, we can just ignore the anticipated problem if we can not change it or it will disappear after we successfully solve the present problem. The Earth, our sole motherland, has a limited longevity roughly 5 billion years, which means we humans will have no places to live and come to extinction according to what the theoretic physcis says. So, should the government focus on the issue that we will meet in the long future? Obviously not! Not only the government even the whole world can stop the death of the Earth whereby the present theory and technology, but also this issue will not be a problem if we can update the space technology to help us find a livable planet and emigrate there which is just what we humans are doing.
However, the government should take the anticipated problems into consideration in most cases when the country itself is the atmosphere of peace and development. A particularly salient example is whether the government should consider the issue of carbon dioxide emission when the country is developing its economy. As we all know, we need to burn natural resources like oil, and woods which will produce greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and heat the Earth to run the cities, vehicles, and factories. While this problem if ignored will not bring the direct economic loss and facilitate the development of the economy in an extremely fast speed in a short term, it will bring disastrous consequences like the rise of the sea level and the extreme climate which can endanger the survival of human. What is worse, it would cost more to reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the species die out can not resurrect.
To sum up, I partially agree this statement because it suits some but not all the cases.
- Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research. 83
- The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question its authority. 79
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones. 50
- Claim In any fileld business politics education government those in power should step down after five years Reason The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through a leadership Write a response in which you discuss the extent to whi 74
- Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all the people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts. 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 15, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e species die out can not resurrect. To sum up, I partially agree this statem...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, second, so, well, while, as to, for instance, no doubt, in most cases, in some cases, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 58.6224719101 101% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2643.0 2235.4752809 118% => OK
No of words: 528.0 442.535393258 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00568181818 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79356345386 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67429004057 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 261.0 215.323595506 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494318181818 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 828.9 704.065955056 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => 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: 31.0 23.0359550562 135% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 85.5981599259 60.3974514979 142% => OK
Chars per sentence: 155.470588235 118.986275619 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.0588235294 23.4991977007 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.76470588235 5.21951772744 149% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.186384735012 0.243740707755 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.068484474962 0.0831039109588 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0863799533199 0.0758088955206 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0942284208085 0.150359130593 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0571013864851 0.0667264976115 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 14.1392134831 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.01 48.8420337079 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.1743820225 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.37 12.1639044944 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 100.480337079 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.2143820225 128% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.