Space exploration is a waste of money. Do you agree or disagree?
In recent years, a considerable government budget has been approved to investigate space searching for extraterrestrial life. However, there is no unanimous consent on whether these expenses are well-considered, as some believe that the resources should be allocated to social programs instead. I oppose such a notion and will prove my point by identifying the economic and social benefits these programs may have on present and future generation.
Instead the funds should be used for space discovery. To begin with, complex exploration projects demand intensive and extensive research in various domains, thus promoting multiple industries. Take the NASA programs in the 1960s as a typical example, they resulted in men reaching the moon’s surface and breakthroughs in technologies including micro-computers and mobile phones. Accordingly, the government indirectly addressed numerous problems by offering new jobs and business opportunities, then increasing the American life quality.
Moreover, that nations portray space exploration as a long-run investment benefits future generations as the main beneficiary. This common practice has been adopted since Medieval Ages, and it helps establish fundamental geopolitical goals. For instance, the Spanish royal family sponsored the first voyage of Christopher Columbus in the late 15th century, which helped Spain to obtain vast territories in America decades later. There is no doubt that the galaxy is far larger in size and value in comparison to the earth; thus, this strategic allotment would someday bear fruit.
In conclusion, I think national leaders should proceed to finance large-scale projects because the discovery of space serves as a powerful spur to both industry and society in the long term. Although it is not entirely predictable, the government has foreseen certain monetary obstacles which are yet to overcome, and spending money on space programs today means having a potentially prosperous future community.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-05-14 | Sandeep USA | 73 | view |
| 2023-10-26 | hoaithuongnguyen283 | 84 | view |
| 2023-10-23 | hoaithuongnguyen283 | 78 | view |
| 2023-08-12 | Manideep Macherla | 84 | view |
| 2023-08-06 | TLan168 | 78 | view |
- It is widely known that despite cars damage the environment their manufacture and their use continue to increase Why is it the case How can this be controlled 89
- Many people believe that cities should not try to preserve its old historic buildings and instead they should destroy them and replace them with modern buildings To what extent do you agree 56
- Many people are working longer and longer hours What are the reasons and effects 95
- The table below shows the questionnaire about the opinions of club members and the general public for the new theater in one town in 2012 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 80
- The picture below shows the process of making clothes from recycled plastic bottles Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 11
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Instead,
...ave on present and future generation. Instead the funds should be used for space disc...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 470, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: larger
...here is no doubt that the galaxy is far larger in size and value in comparison to the earth; t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 414, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...otentially prosperous future community.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, first, however, if, may, moreover, so, then, thus, well, as for, for instance, i think, in conclusion, no doubt, 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: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 24.0651302605 54% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 41.998997996 67% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1695.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 295.0 315.596192385 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.74576271186 5.12529762239 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08503630593 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 176.041082164 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.68813559322 0.561755894193 122% => OK
syllable_count: 529.2 506.74238477 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => 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: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.990834594 49.4020404114 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.384615385 106.682146367 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6923076923 20.7667163134 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.6923076923 7.06120827912 151% => 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 : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0931170212795 0.244688304435 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0309797467139 0.084324248473 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0371558587915 0.0667982634062 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0524919280016 0.151304729494 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0226490759243 0.056905535591 40% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 13.0946893788 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 50.2224549098 64% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.37 12.4159519038 132% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.72 8.58950901804 125% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 78.4519038076 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.