There is a little room for doubt that nowadays people attach great importance to sport and cultural events globally and, subsequently, the amount of spending money on these happenings is significantly increasing. While I am sternly inclined to believe that this trend is accompanied by more prominent consequences, there are some thought-provoking standpoints which should be taken into consideration.
Proponents of spending the considerable amount of money on these social events advocate the idea that the more money is spent on sport and cultural events, the more economic and social developments will occur. First and the foremost, one of the most productive ways of reduction in unemployment rate is holding global events like Olympic or world cup competitions. As a result, competition organizers are compelled to recruit vast majority of employees and, in turn, managers would be able to pay personnel’s salaries through tickets which have been purchased by spectators. Furthermore, governors are able to benefit from remarkable amount of money spending on various events to develop necessary infrastructures in the countries. Consequently, using an appropriate management, there is a prepared frustration in society in order to promote creativity and innovation in next generations.
However, opponents of wasting a great deal of money on luxurious events opine that as long as famine, intensive poverty and other drawbacks are observed throughout the world, this unfettered trend is unjustifiable. Nevertheless, the best would be if organizers dedicate a noticeable section of revenue which are achieved, particularly by selling tickets or services, to charity institutions all over the world. This glaringly apparent instance exemplifies that even though, at first glance, spending thousands dollars on prominent global events, sport or cultural, might deny strict global problems, eventually these incomes would be able to assist to eliminate poverty and famine from throughout the world using a discerning management.
To sum up, after careful situational analysis of advantageous ramifications and existence of a pessimistic notion, it can be rationally concluded that if revenues of selling tickets or other services is sagaciously organized, this trend is followed by relentless and beneficial repercussions in terms of social improvements and obviating global difficulties.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, nevertheless, so, while, as a result, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 13.1623246493 152% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 41.998997996 126% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2047.0 1615.20841683 127% => OK
No of words: 354.0 315.596192385 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.78248587571 5.12529762239 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33761313653 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.34992638231 2.80592935109 119% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 176.041082164 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59604519774 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 646.2 506.74238477 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 16.0721442886 68% => 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: 32.0 20.2975951904 158% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 63.6772595864 49.4020404114 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 186.090909091 106.682146367 174% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.1818181818 20.7667163134 155% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.54545454545 7.06120827912 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.203468174461 0.244688304435 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0712753481553 0.084324248473 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0663607789189 0.0667982634062 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116623921903 0.151304729494 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0488628038033 0.056905535591 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 21.9 13.0946893788 167% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 22.08 50.2224549098 44% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 14.6 7.44779559118 196% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.1 11.3001002004 160% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.84 12.4159519038 136% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.98 8.58950901804 128% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 78.4519038076 164% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.78957915832 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 10.1190380762 146% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => 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.