Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.
For a nation to properly burgeon, its ruling parties must address the problems besieging the people. No action undertaken or stance embraced can however be labeled as efficacious unless politicians do so irrespectively of location, time, ethnicity. Therefore, it is true that no generation should be neglected on the altar of a potential future betterment, but governments must heed the anticipated problems of the future.
Constituents elect politicians with the hope that present issues hampering their growth and well-being as individuals would be tackled. This is mostly evidenced when situations turn to be worsened or do not evolve, for people express their will of reshuffle through ballots. The governments of poor and developing countries, for instance, are inclined to ponder over solutions to current, and often, pressing issues. Solving problems of undernourishment, water's dearth and health, or curbing the unemployment rate might prevail over an ecological transition in India or in Mali; and one cannot blame such countries to have a myopic view.
Emergency situations should also be taken into consideration. Terrorism and natural disaster have indeed always been considered vicissitudes that needed to be hastily handled by politicians from right and left parties on the political spectrum. Governments solving the immediate hurdles also act as a bulwark to avoid them to cumulate and grow to be more complex in the long run. Despite the ruling parties should not be absolved of their responsibility toward present situations, it is essential to seize that even the aforementioned instances require great amounts of time, and are present problems that would be solved in the future. Otherwise, 800 million of humans wouldn’t be starving daily.
Our minds tend however to realise how grave is a situation only when we actually face it. But unlike the laity, it should reside in the duty of governments to display eminent qualities, have a holistic view, and acts contingently upon it. There is no better situation embodying this dilemma than the ecological crisis. Keeping investing massively in industries, for instance, while these results in the depletion of fossil fuels and threatens our conditions of life as well as our children's, is oblivious nay criminal.
In this regard, awkwardly fails the author to understand the nature of problems, especially at a wide scale. Be they political, economic, or social, present problems have their genesis in the past, and the future ones will have been the consequences of current behaviours and blind decisions. Since this pattern is clearly identified, with the means we dispose of nowadays, anticipating the future hurdles might permit avoiding the so called immediate problems. Investments would be directed to causes that who benefit the majority and enhances the overall well-being.
- The increasingly rapid pace of life today causes more problems than it solves 77
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear 75
- It is often asserted that the purpose of education is to free the mind and the spirit In reality however formal education tends to restrain our minds and spirits rather than set them free 83
- We learn our most valuable lessons in life from struggling with our limitations rather than from enjoying our successes 83
- Society should identify those children who have special talents and abilities and begin training them at an early age so that they can eventually excel in their areas of ability 85
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, so, therefore, well, while, for instance, as well as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2420.0 2235.4752809 108% => OK
No of words: 445.0 442.535393258 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.43820224719 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59293186426 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00224550898 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 267.0 215.323595506 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.6 0.4932671777 122% => OK
syllable_count: 747.9 704.065955056 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 9.0 1.77640449438 507% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.6887314894 60.3974514979 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.0 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.25 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.9 5.21951772744 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 5.13820224719 272% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.187603365681 0.243740707755 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0507033761982 0.0831039109588 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0591175724481 0.0758088955206 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100003518163 0.150359130593 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0387633322805 0.0667264976115 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.57 12.1639044944 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.26 8.38706741573 122% => OK
difficult_words: 156.0 100.480337079 155% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.