The beginning of the 21st century coincided with considerable developments, by which, it was imagined that advanced technology in agriculture would overcome our crisis. Yet, in some parts of the world, people are tolerating hunger and famine. This is because, in my view, the least developed countries rarely access to common developments. Besides, poor climate is another reason which has confined agriculture and its developments. For these two problems international fund can be a practical solution.
Many of the third-world countries are deprived of conventional developments and farming technology in particular due to limited financial resources and powerless infrastructure. Therefore, in these countries agriculture industries suffer a lack of development, not being able to provide sufficient food for their people. Afghanistan is a case in point. In this country because of prolonged war technology has never been extended and many of its people experience starvation. Moreover, in this country arid climate and large area of uncultivable lands are another reason why agriculture has not been successful. Therefore, since some countries are not powerful in terms of economical or environmental conditions, they can not take advantage of agriculture advancement.
The possible solution is to constitute an international fund. What this fund does is to provide sources from regulatory taxes. For this end, some rules need to be regulated for agricultural exporting countries to devote a portion of their profit to this fund. Therefore, the outcome of this aid can be dedicated to poor nations in order to establish a stable agricultural infrastructure, extending their technologies. In addition, some parts of this contribution can be intended for extending research on agricultural matters in the direction of overcoming crises and boundaries in agriculture such as poor soil and climate. In point of fact, the more developments in agricultural industries occur, the more money will be investigated in the fund. Consequently, higher financial aid can be provided to needy countries. By way of illustration, in 2018, the USA benefited from agricultural product and food export around 140 billion Dolores while this figure is more than thousand-fold of all Afghanistan income. As a result, a tiny share of USA income for instance 1 percent can eradicate famine in Afghanistan.
Moreover, besides taxes, other supporting finance can come from humanitarian aid. Consider Bill Gates donation which saves millions of African children from starvation every single year. Given what was stated, I believe that international agricultural fund would be the most effective approach to tackle starvation and famine in impoverished nations.
To conclude, this is undeniable that agriculture and farming industries have rapidly developed thanks to advanced technologies, however due to lack of developments and unsuitable climate in some countries, many people go still hungry. This problem would be solved if there is an international fund with the aim of supporting financial and extending research in the realms of agricultural studies.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 198, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'countries'' or 'country's'?
Suggestion: countries'; country's
...ess infrastructure. Therefore, in these countries agriculture industries suffer a lack of...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, consequently, however, if, moreover, so, still, therefore, third, while, for instance, in addition, in particular, such as, as a result, in my view
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 13.1623246493 190% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 41.998997996 167% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2669.0 1615.20841683 165% => OK
No of words: 474.0 315.596192385 150% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.63080168776 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66599839874 4.20363070211 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30043653244 2.80592935109 118% => OK
Unique words: 255.0 176.041082164 145% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.537974683544 0.561755894193 96% => OK
syllable_count: 855.0 506.74238477 169% => 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: 8.0 2.52805611222 316% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 13.0 4.76152304609 273% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 16.0721442886 156% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.1655499322 49.4020404114 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.76 106.682146367 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.96 20.7667163134 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.44 7.06120827912 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 3.9879759519 276% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.252483472384 0.244688304435 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0696279232903 0.084324248473 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0478341097631 0.0667982634062 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141969251334 0.151304729494 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0590686768486 0.056905535591 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.0946893788 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 50.2224549098 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.37 12.4159519038 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.58950901804 105% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 78.4519038076 172% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.