Some people believe arts such as painting and music cannot directly improve the quality of people's lives so that government money should be spent on other things. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Along with the change in times, more and more nations use many methods to improve the quality of life. Many educators think governments should conduct more art activities to enhance the aesthetics of people because most exhibitions can cultivate citizens' aesthetics and provide many memorable experiences to the public. However, some politicians indicate that the most efficient way for improving environment's quality is enhancing city's infrastructure. In this essay, I will discuss both these views, and propose with why I disagree with using art's budget for other purposes.
Firstly, most educationalists believe the appreciation of beauty is essential to everyone since people can foster their sensitivity to beauty. Such process can discipline folk to notice their environment's detail. Take an event as an example, Taiwan's government build a church, which looks like a high heel. This tourist attraction attracts many people to go sightseeing, yet from professional views, this building is a disaster because of it use too direct concept for describing its shape. Interestingly, this place still causes many hot topics. Thus, this example shows that most Taiwanese lack the sense of sense of beauty.
In contrast, some official people think the investment of art is a minor issue because the official institution can utilize this budget for doing more efficient constructions, such as improving the congested road, looking for alternative energy, and solving drainage system's problems, etc. The overcrowded road's issue already causes many inconvenient problems. If the administration could cost more much money to reduce the amount of car, it might improve the pollution. Moreover, alternative energy is a vital topic, as the success of this project can decrease the melting iceberg's speed. Therefore, most governors indicate official agency must spend more much money on these projects.
To conclude, I totally agree that the budget for art is important, especially for children, because these activities can foster teenagers' thinking of aesthetics. These contributions will make the world much better since almost youngsters will have the ability to distinguish what is better for the environment.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-06-17 | eloradorable | 64 | view |
- Scientist and Tourist travel to remote natural environments, such as South Pole. Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? 78
- Some people say that too much attention and too many resources are given in the protection of wild animals and birds. Do you agree or disagree with this opinion? 78
- Scientists and tourists can travel to remote natural environments such as the South Pole Do you think the advantages outweigh its disadvantages 62
- Scientist and Tourist travel to remote natural environments, such as South Pole. Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? 78
- To some people studying the past is the best to help young people function well in the modern world To what extent do you agree or disagree What other measures could be effective in helping young people to function well in the modern world 90
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 602, Rule ID: PHRASE_REPETITION[1]
Message: This phrase is duplicated. You should probably leave only 'sense of'.
Suggestion: sense of
...mple shows that most Taiwanese lack the sense of sense of beauty. In contrast, some official p...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, look, moreover, so, still, therefore, thus, in contrast, such as
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: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 41.998997996 74% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1878.0 1615.20841683 116% => OK
No of words: 337.0 315.596192385 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.57270029674 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28457229495 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94354539486 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 176.041082164 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.596439169139 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 583.2 506.74238477 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => 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: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.5909691113 49.4020404114 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.470588235 106.682146367 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8235294118 20.7667163134 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.76470588235 7.06120827912 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.155862196504 0.244688304435 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0438971424712 0.084324248473 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0349097017311 0.0667982634062 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0886768423344 0.151304729494 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0350454117897 0.056905535591 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.0946893788 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.03 12.4159519038 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.64 8.58950901804 112% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 78.4519038076 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.