companies should provide sports facilities for local communities. To what extend do you agree?
The question of whether companies should provide sports facilities for local communities is a matter of ongoing debate. While some argue that it is the responsibility of companies to promote physical activity and community engagement, others contend that this duty falls primarily on the government. This essay will explore both perspectives and provide a well-rounded analysis.
Advocates of companies providing sports facilities assert that these entities possess the necessary financial resources and expertise to contribute to the well-being of local communities. By investing in sports facilities, companies can promote physical fitness, combat sedentary lifestyles, and encourage social interaction among community members. For example, a company-sponsored sports complex could offer various recreational activities, such as swimming, tennis, and basketball, providing opportunities for individuals of all ages to engage in healthy pursuits. Moreover, corporate involvement in community initiatives enhances their corporate social responsibility image and fosters positive relationships with local residents.
Opponents argue that the primary responsibility for providing sports facilities lies with the government, given its role in public welfare and resource allocation. They contend that relying solely on companies could result in an unequal distribution of sports facilities, with certain areas benefiting more than others. Governments, on the other hand, possess the authority and resources to develop comprehensive and equitable sports infrastructure for the entire community. By investing in government-funded sports facilities, access can be ensured for underserved areas and marginalized populations, thereby promoting social inclusivity and addressing societal disparities.
In conclusion, while there are valid arguments for companies to provide sports facilities for local communities, the primary responsibility lies with the government. A collaborative approach that combines the resources and expertise of both sectors can yield the most effective outcomes. Companies can contribute their financial support, technical knowledge, and corporate social responsibility initiatives, while the government can ensure equitable access, prioritize underserved communities, and oversee long-term maintenance. By working together, these entities can create a healthier and more inclusive society, offering recreational opportunities to all members of the community.
- companies should provide sports facilities for local communities To what extend do you agree 73
- Doctors should be responsible for educating their patients about how to improve their health To what extend do you agree or disagree 73
- Doing an enjoyable activity with a child can be better for their overall skills development and creativity than reading To what extend do you agree 67
- Doing an enjoyable activity with a child can be better for their overall skills development and creativity than reading To what extend do you agree 73
- Many governments think that economic progress is their most important goal Some people however think that other types of progress are equally important for a country Discuss both views and give your own opinion 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHETHER[3]
Message: Wordiness: Shorten this phrase to the shortest possible suggestion.
Suggestion: Whether; The question whether
The question of whether companies should provide sports facilit...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, moreover, so, well, while, for example, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 13.1623246493 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 10.4138276553 144% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 41.998997996 83% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2151.0 1615.20841683 133% => OK
No of words: 330.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 6.51818181818 5.12529762239 127% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26214759535 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.40342964278 2.80592935109 121% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 176.041082164 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.557575757576 0.561755894193 99% => OK
syllable_count: 688.5 506.74238477 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.1 1.60771543086 131% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.4551687033 49.4020404114 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.4 106.682146367 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 20.7667163134 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.06120827912 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.316059042715 0.244688304435 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119752160946 0.084324248473 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.115679559356 0.0667982634062 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.218054378456 0.151304729494 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0656961452583 0.056905535591 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.3 13.0946893788 155% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 6.84 50.2224549098 14% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.8 11.3001002004 158% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 20.54 12.4159519038 165% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.09 8.58950901804 129% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 78.4519038076 170% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.78957915832 138% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 21.0 10.7795591182 195% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.