Rich countries often give money to poorer countries, but it does not solve poverty. Therefore, developed countries should give other types of help to the poor countries rather than financial aid. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is believed that developed nations should encourage the posperity in poor nations by providing them with other types of support in lieu of money. I somewhat agree with the point of view as money can be mispent by inefficient or corrupted governments, while other means are more useful.
It is not uncommon that the authorities in the recipient nations are unable to make use of financial resources properly. Despite the financial allocation, lack of knowledge, scarcity of skilled manpower, and deficiency of technological infrastructure would haunt any efforts that help poor nations shake off poverty. Another malady that poor nations may encounter stems from the incapable authorities. Reigning regulators may be drunk with the trappings of power rather than pay attention to the well-being of their citizens. While the investment from donating nations is no more than a cash cow for those who are in authority, the major population of the poor countries still suffer all the vicissitudes of life without any cushions from their governments.
Admittedly, financial resources are the most efficient form of support. The assets can be easily used to construct infrastructure or public facilities, which pave the way for development in the less well-off nations. Given that poor nations in fact lack many components to turn financial investments into facilitators of national economy, technological equipment handover, professional support, and trainings would be more practical remedies for the less developing countries.
In sum, even though money are the optimum as it is convenient to supply to recipient nations, it can stir up the minefield of beureacracy and corruption. I mostly agree with the view that other types of support including providing technological facilities, professional workers, consults are more beneficial for inhabitants of poor nations.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-11-06 | Thai Tran | 87 | view |
| 2024-01-04 | honguyenlily | 73 | view |
| 2023-11-29 | Alexanderpopov | 56 | view |
| 2023-11-02 | tracywu | 84 | view |
| 2023-10-31 | thaokim2003 | 89 | view |
- In many parts of the world people now often throw things away when they are broken and buy new ones Whereas in the past things were repaired and used again 84
- Solving environmental problems should be the responsibility of one international organization rather than each national government Do you agree or disagree 67
- Most of our information comes from the Internet nowadays Some people say that a large part of the information we get is incorrect Do you agree or disagree 73
- The use of social media may replace face to face contact Do advantages of the development outweigh its disadvantages 89
- Nowadays people use bicycles less as a form of transport Why is that What can we do to encourage people to use bicycles more 84
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, may, so, still, well, while, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 41.998997996 105% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1585.0 1615.20841683 98% => OK
No of words: 288.0 315.596192385 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.50347222222 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11126417964 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 176.041082164 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.579861111111 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 492.3 506.74238477 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => 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: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.1702584994 49.4020404114 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.083333333 106.682146367 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 20.7667163134 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.33333333333 7.06120827912 47% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => 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: 0.143578747091 0.244688304435 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0500590186858 0.084324248473 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0310854573622 0.0667982634062 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0860962166928 0.151304729494 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0294969410853 0.056905535591 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 13.0946893788 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 50.2224549098 77% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.92 12.4159519038 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.71 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 78.4519038076 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.