Nowadays, many countries hope to gain worldwide attention and fame by winning international championships. In order to attain this goal, they finance specialized amenities that are geared up to train elite athletes in lieu of improving public access to fitness facilities. Although this measure brings about some potential benefits, I strongly assert that this is a negative development.
Admittedly, it is understandable why some governments have incentives to provide top-notch athletes with the exclusive use of high-quality facilities. To begin with, specially designed equipment ensures an immaculate and safer training environment conducive to the development of prospective athletes. With the aid of the cutting-edge facilities, talented all-round trainees are able to avoid unnecessary injury and know how to improve weaknesses and identify strengths. In addition, athlete-friendly training programs, accompanied by superb amenities, guarantee success and honor in international competitions, such as Olympic Games and the World Cup, and this is considered an effective way to boost a national image and pride. The outstanding performance of athletes not only wins the world’s accolades but also increases patriotism among younger generations and gives them a paradigm to emulate. Nevertheless, the benefits mentioned above do not necessarily imply that sportspeople should have the privilege of monopolizing the national resources.
In fact, a growth of a sedentary lifestyle among people is the first negative result of government-funded facilities that are specifically targeted at athletes. With limited access to doing daily workouts or taking up their favorite sports, people have little alternative but to confine themselves to their rooms playing online games or streaming Hollywood movies. This sedentary lifestyle, which is a precursor to many potentially chronic illnesses such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, anxiety and depression, might compromise people’s physical and mental health.
Another serious repercussion is that constructing athletic training facilities puts a financial burden on a country, hampering the long-term development of other public sectors. With a view to achieving international success in sports, governments have to budget more carefully to maintain and improve the quality of specialized facilities. However, the increasing expenditure on athletic equipment insinuates an inevitable reduction of government spending in other important sectors such as education, pension, healthcare and national defense, all of which are the very things people care about.
To recapitulate, the idea of building specialized facilities for top athletes is completely preposterous because it has brought about too many problems to be considered a positive trend. Considering its negative impacts on health, economy and public welfare, I would suggest that any plans of the exclusive use of sports facilities should be scrapped.
- Today more people are overweight than ever before What in your opinion are the primary causes of this What are the main effects of this epidemic 84
- Playing computer games is a waste of time Children should not be allowed to play them 93
- Young people have attitude and ideas different from that of their parents and grandparents How do these attitudes differ between young people and their parents and grandparents In your opinion do you think it would cause problems 78
- Nowadays people the way many people interact with each other has changed because of technology In what ways has technology affected the types of relationships people make Has this become a positive or negative development 84
- Some cities have vehicle free days when private cars trucks and motorcycles are banned from the city center People are encouraged to use public transportation such as buses taxis and metro on vehicle free days Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages 95
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, nevertheless, so, in addition, in fact, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 10.4138276553 173% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 41.998997996 150% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2544.0 1615.20841683 158% => OK
No of words: 426.0 315.596192385 135% => OK
Chars per words: 5.97183098592 5.12529762239 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54310108192 4.20363070211 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.32689320343 2.80592935109 119% => OK
Unique words: 264.0 176.041082164 150% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.619718309859 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 813.6 506.74238477 161% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 39.1325491296 49.4020404114 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.647058824 106.682146367 140% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0588235294 20.7667163134 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.47058823529 7.06120827912 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.274981091231 0.244688304435 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0740625359172 0.084324248473 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0500936458867 0.0667982634062 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138466392988 0.151304729494 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0545120346059 0.056905535591 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.2 13.0946893788 147% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 20.72 50.2224549098 41% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.6 11.3001002004 147% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.64 12.4159519038 142% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.77 8.58950901804 125% => OK
difficult_words: 159.0 78.4519038076 203% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.78957915832 128% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.