Some people say that the best way to improve public health is by increasing the number of sports facilities. Others, however, say that this would have little effect on public health and that other measures are required.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
These days, there are a considerable number of ideas assume that the number of sports facilities should increase as the best measure to benefit public health. While sports facilities certainly bring several advantages to public health, I would argue that increasing the number of it is not the best method.
To begin with, there are some benefits that sport facilities increases will provide to public health. First and foremost, since the number of those tools increases, the capacity of overall sports facilities will increase. Consequently, there is an increasing number of citizens who have opportunities to train their physical abilities. Additionally, insufficient sports facilities will prevent children from playing their desired sports, and force them to create their own tools by themselves without standardized safety requirements. As a result, they could get accidents. For instance, when children do not have an ideal football ground, they might play in place which contains broken glass and be injured.
However, I would believe that the idea of increasing sports facilities also has several drawbacks. Firstly, because sports facilities are expensive, raising the number of it could be a financial burden for the local authorities. This might reduce investments for important sectors such as education, public structures. Secondly, physical activities are not always the priority of every person. Thus an increase in the number of sports facilities might not belong with an increase of public uses. Consequently, an increase of those facilities could be considered as a loss.
In summary, while an increase in the number of sports facilities could improve public health, I would argue that it is not the best measure.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 394, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ot always the priority of every person. Thus an increase in the number of sports fac...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, firstly, however, second, secondly, so, thus, while, for instance, in summary, such as, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 7.85571142285 178% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 10.4138276553 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 41.998997996 69% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 8.3376753507 24% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1473.0 1615.20841683 91% => OK
No of words: 269.0 315.596192385 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.47583643123 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0498419064 4.20363070211 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86627466676 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 176.041082164 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.527881040892 0.561755894193 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 447.3 506.74238477 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.10420841683 285% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.8112270217 49.4020404114 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.2 106.682146367 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9333333333 20.7667163134 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.4 7.06120827912 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
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: 0.264303288466 0.244688304435 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.107070188753 0.084324248473 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.098769571841 0.0667982634062 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.217261535401 0.151304729494 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0851135561192 0.056905535591 150% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.0946893788 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 50.2224549098 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.83 8.58950901804 91% => OK
difficult_words: 57.0 78.4519038076 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.78957915832 128% => 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.