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?
We are living in a world where eliminating poverty is a heated topic and often discussed amongst individuals. It is commonly believed that the underdeveloped countries should receive financial supports from the wealthy nations. This essay shall explain the reasons behind my arguments against the ineffectiveness of this method and suggest the feasibility of alternatives to improve this problem.
Giving property to developing countries could cause some pressing troubles. One of them could be that it would result in wasting money in stead of really making profit out of the financial aids. It is due to the fact that the number of money from rich states give to poor states could only be available within a small period of time, as it quickly disappear. Those financial aids would be spent by the authorities, as it expended on infrastructure, education, medication and so on. Therefore, the money used for developing economy would be limited. Money from rich states does not spend smartly on developing the economy , and again we have to cope with poverty when the money gone.
It is recommended that the governments should adopt the following method. One of them could be that in lieu of giving money, rich nations should invest wisely in some potential fields such as agricultures and industries. It is due to the fact that in developing countries there are a large number of workers and labors. Therefore, money spent on them could decline the unemployment rates among people. And Vietnam exemplifies this situation. There are several international entrepreneurs invest on Vietnamese industries, creating many jobs for employees.
In conclusion, giving money to poor nations would be ineffectively alleviate poverty. I would say that one of the mentioned measures could be a superior substitutes.
- 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? 61
- The graph shows Underground Station passenger numbers in London.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 56
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 135, Rule ID: IN_STEAD_OF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'instead of'?
Suggestion: instead of
...e that it would result in wasting money in stead of really making profit out of the financi...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 318, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
... could only be available within a small period of time, as it quickly disappear. Those financi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 620, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
... spend smartly on developing the economy , and again we have to cope with poverty ...
^^
Line 3, column 282, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
... that in developing countries there are a large number of workers and labors. Therefore, money sp...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, really, so, therefore, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 7.85571142285 191% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 41.998997996 93% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.3376753507 36% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1519.0 1615.20841683 94% => OK
No of words: 289.0 315.596192385 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25605536332 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00124627304 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 176.041082164 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.553633217993 0.561755894193 99% => OK
syllable_count: 476.1 506.74238477 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.2713575972 49.4020404114 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.3529411765 106.682146367 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0 20.7667163134 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.88235294118 7.06120827912 41% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.01903807615 80% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.9879759519 201% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.225186019294 0.244688304435 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0715566398206 0.084324248473 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.058768153508 0.0667982634062 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126504791145 0.151304729494 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0454844607708 0.056905535591 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.0946893788 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 50.2224549098 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.93 12.4159519038 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.91 8.58950901804 104% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 78.4519038076 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.