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?
Recently, certain countries have attained global recognition in sports by emphasizing the development of exclusive training facilities for elite athletes instead of offering sports facilities that are available to the general public. While this approach has proven to be effective in producing world-class athletes, it raises questions about its overall impact on society. This essay will explore the positive and negative aspects of this approach.
On the one hand, building specialized facilities for top athletes can have many positive effects. Firstly, it can provide a safe and well-equipped environment for athletes to train and compete in. This can lead to improved performance and can help to prevent injuries, which is especially important for high-level athletes who put their bodies under extreme stress. Secondly, investing in top athletes can raise the profile of a country and bring international recognition, which can have positive effects on tourism and the economy. Finally, supporting top athletes can inspire and motivate younger generations to pursue sports, leading to a healthier and more active society.
On the other hand, this approach can have negative consequences, particularly for those who are not elite athletes. Firstly, it can lead to unequal access to sports facilities, which can perpetuate social inequalities. If resources are only directed towards top athletes, other members of society may be excluded from sports and physical activity. Secondly, it can lead to a narrow focus on certain sports, which can limit the diversity of sports available and prevent the development of athletes in other areas. By focusing exclusively on training top athletes, a country may overlook the importance of promoting physical activity and sports participation among the general population. This could have negative consequences for public health, as well as for the development of grass-roots sports programs that could identify and nurture future top athletes.
In conclusion, , the approach of building specialized facilities for top athletes has both positive and negative aspects. Therefore, it is important for countries to strike a balance between supporting elite athletes and providing accessible sports facilities for all members of society.
| 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 |
- PEOPLE THINK THAT SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES HAVE A HUGE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON BOTH INDIVIDUALS AND SOCIETY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE 56
- Some people claim that public museums and art galleries will be no longer necessary because people can see historical objects and works of art by using a computer 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 78
- Companies use different ways to increase sales What different ways do companies use to increase sales What is the most effective 78
- Some people think children have the freedom to make mistakes while other people believe that adults should prevent children from making mistakes Discuss both sides and give your opinion 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 219, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ts facilities that are available to the general public. While this approach has proven to be e...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 15, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ure future top athletes. In conclusion, , the approach of building specialized fa...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, while, as for, in conclusion, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 7.85571142285 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1942.0 1615.20841683 120% => OK
No of words: 341.0 315.596192385 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.69501466276 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29722995808 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99702324872 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 176.041082164 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507331378299 0.561755894193 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 617.4 506.74238477 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.5825008909 49.4020404114 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.375 106.682146367 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3125 20.7667163134 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.625 7.06120827912 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => 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: 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: 0.371462658594 0.244688304435 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.137784914744 0.084324248473 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0938049267225 0.0667982634062 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.250755660829 0.151304729494 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0498436349496 0.056905535591 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 13.0946893788 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 50.2224549098 66% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.78 12.4159519038 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.49 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 78.4519038076 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.7795591182 148% => 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.