Some countries achieve international success by building specialized facilities to train top athletes instead of providing sports facilities that everyone can use. Is it a positive or negative development?
In recent years, some countries have achieved international success in sports by focusing on building specialized facilities to train top athletes instead of providing sports facilities that are accessible to everyone. While this approach has proven to be effective in producing world-class athletes, it raises questions about its overall impact on society.
On the positive side, this approach can lead to a high level of specialized training and resources that can help produce world-class athletes. These facilities can be equipped with the latest technology and equipment to support the athletes' training, nutrition, and recovery needs. This can result in improved performance, increased competitiveness, and increased representation of the country on the international stage.
On the negative side, focusing on specialized facilities for top athletes can lead to unequal distribution of resources. This can result in a lack of investment in recreational sports facilities that are accessible to the general public, reducing opportunities for people to be physically active and engage in sports. This can have negative impacts on public health and community cohesion. Additionally, if only a small number of athletes receive specialized training, it can lead to a lack of diversity in sports, reducing the potential for new talent to emerge.
In conclusion, whether building specialized facilities for top athletes is a positive or negative development depends on the balance between investment in these facilities and investment in recreational sports facilities for the general public, as well as the impact that these facilities have on the athletes, the public, and the country as a whole.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-01-18 | honguyenlily | 84 | view |
| 2023-11-06 | thaokim2003 | 61 | view |
| 2023-11-02 | tracywu | 73 | view |
| 2023-10-23 | Giang Tran | 67 | view |
| 2023-10-03 | Cuberates | 73 | view |
- Some people argue job satisfaction is more important than job security Others believe a permanent job is more important Discuss both these views and give your own opinion 61
- PEOPLE THINK THAT SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES HAVE A HUGE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON BOTH INDIVIDUALS AND SOCIETY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE 56
- Some people think news has no connection to people s lives So then it is a waste of time to read the newspaper and watch television news programs To what extent do you agree or disagree 73
- In many countries the number of animals and plants is declining Why do you think it is happening How to solve this issue 11
- In many countries people like to eat a wider range of food than can be grown in their local place Therefore much of the food people eat today has to come from other regions Do you think the advantages of this development outweigh disadvantages 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 222, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...s facilities that are accessible to the general public, reducing opportunities for people to b...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 412, Rule ID: SMALL_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, use 'a few', or use 'some'
Suggestion: a few; some
...mmunity cohesion. Additionally, if only a small number of athletes receive specialized training, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 230, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
... recreational sports facilities for the general public, as well as the impact that these facil...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, so, well, while, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1447.0 1615.20841683 90% => OK
No of words: 256.0 315.596192385 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.65234375 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 4.20363070211 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.24292866152 2.80592935109 116% => OK
Unique words: 123.0 176.041082164 70% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.48046875 0.561755894193 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 460.8 506.74238477 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 16.0721442886 62% => 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: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 71.7359742389 49.4020404114 145% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.7 106.682146367 136% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6 20.7667163134 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.1 7.06120827912 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.45997228399 0.244688304435 188% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.17918555458 0.084324248473 212% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.165261014217 0.0667982634062 247% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.289899058331 0.151304729494 192% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0880147578596 0.056905535591 155% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.0 13.0946893788 137% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 50.2224549098 58% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.79 12.4159519038 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.13 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 78.4519038076 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.