Q: Everybody should donate a fixed amount of their income to support charity. How far do you share this view point?
Humanitarian aid organisations ought to be supported financially by all people through an identical quantity of their remunerations. It seems to me that individuals’ donations are a significant factor for these agencies continuity, and I will explain why.
Firstly, charities are always in need to financial assistance to be able to extend support to needy people.
Without individuals help, such humanitarian bodies would not have been presented till now. “Unicef” and “Red cross”, which are the most well-known examples of these agencies, call for fund raising annually to meet demands of needy people, who either lack the minimum essentials to survive or suffer natural catastrophes (typhoons, earthquakes and volcanoes are some types).
Secondly, everybody should accept the notion of taking on a part of responsibility towards hard-up across the world. This is because everyone is expected to face challenges at any time as natural disasters are expected to take place suddenly. Moreover, it is a humankind virtue not to share impacted people feelings socially or mentally only, but also economically to allay those fears by paying for that from their own income periodically.
Thirdly, charities have to know the expected revenue from people’s donations. This is in order to prepare an appropriate plan for spending the collected money. For instance, by building mobile camps and buying food stocks. This cannot be achieved without collecting known amounts of expenses from people.
Admittedly, it might be said that fund raising of global aid bodies should be extended by giant firms’ taxes only; nevertheless, this is not enough without the individuals fixed support as they are more significant in number when compared to firms’ number.
It is sensible to conclude that moral rights and unexpected disasters combine together to prove that charities ought to be supported with fixed quantities of money from individuals’ salaries to last longer.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-04-01 | VladZemq | 73 | view |
| 2018-04-01 | walaa Abdelfattah | 84 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 217, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'agencies'' or 'agency's'?
Suggestion: agencies'; agency's
...ions are a significant factor for these agencies continuity, and I will explain why. ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 209, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: significant
...ividuals fixed support as they are more significant in number when compared to firms' number. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, well, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => 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: 1709.0 1615.20841683 106% => OK
No of words: 304.0 315.596192385 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.62171052632 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17559525986 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19295063816 2.80592935109 114% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.648026315789 0.561755894193 115% => OK
syllable_count: 528.3 506.74238477 104% => 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: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.1027210364 49.4020404114 144% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.071428571 106.682146367 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7142857143 20.7667163134 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.92857142857 7.06120827912 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 4.38176352705 160% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => 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: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.12887424155 0.244688304435 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0417819962576 0.084324248473 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0317021463771 0.0667982634062 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0597338350298 0.151304729494 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0333548839868 0.056905535591 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 13.0946893788 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.32 12.4159519038 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.56 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 78.4519038076 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.7795591182 148% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum five paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.