Should wealthy nations be required to share their wealth among poorer nations by providing such things as food and education? Or is it the responsibility of the governments of poorer nations to look after their citizens themselves?
In the 21st century, the gap between developed and developing countries has become more noticeable and serious. This has raised the question of whether first-world countries should dedicate some of their wealth to third-countries or that the states of less privileged countries themselves should hold the responsibility to take care of their people. There are arguments on both sides of this very topical debate.
On the one hand, supporters of helping poorer countries point to a moral duty that everybody must give a hand to impoverished people who are not able to provide themselves with basic human needs, including food, health, and education. We can see this trend in wealthy western nations share a number of their funds among African poorer nations, resulting in less unemployment, less infectious diseases such as Malaria and Aids, and healthy food in those needed countries. Furthermore, those who support this deed also claim that underdeveloped and developing nations are struggling with a myriad of crisis, ranging from unemployment to corruption, inevitably making their citizens emigrate to privileged nations with the intention of finding better standard of living and quality of life, by helping such nations out, it can halt the flood of emigrants which is considered being the most important issue in the western world nowadays.
On the other hand, though, one major drawback of this idea is that neither does it can help poorer countries to tackle their problems, nor does it may make them developed. This is partly because the politicians and people of countries obtain this aid bring the idea of 'we cannot' and 'we will always need help' into their lives and societies, making them feel unable to change the circumstances of their countries. In addition, those who oppose this idea highlight that gratuitous financial assistance would result in more corruption in the long term. Instead of investing funds in manufacturing and creating job opportunities, politicians governing third world countries would try to take advantage of them in favor of themselves and their families, promoting the inequality and greater gap between the impoverished and the privileged in the society.
In conclusion, I believe that rich countries should not be required to help poorer counties financially. Instead, they are obliged to export their technology and management to developing countries to pave the way for making progress economically and socially.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-04-15 | btv999222@gmail.com | 78 | view |
- Some people feel that boarding schools (where students or pupils live at the school during the term) are an excellent option for children, while other people disagree for a number of reasons. Consider both sides of this debate and reach a conclusion. 78
- The graph below shows the proportion of the population aged 65 and over between 1940 and 2040 in three different countries. 67
- The chart below shows the results of a survey which sampled a cross-section of 100,000 people asking about their destinations for the period 1994-98. 56
- The chart shows the amount of money per week spent on fast foods in Britain. 78
- The table shows the number of foreign visitors (in millions) to 7 countries. 67
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 129, Rule ID: WHETHER[3]
Message: Wordiness: Shorten this phrase to the shortest possible suggestion.
Suggestion: whether; the question whether
...noticeable and serious. This has raised the question of whether first-world countries should dedicate s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 432, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a critic'.
Suggestion: who is a critic
... of their countries. In addition, those who critic this idea highlight that gratuitous fin...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 15, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...g progress economically and socially.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, if, may, so, third, in addition, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 10.4138276553 173% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 24.0651302605 166% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 41.998997996 138% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2092.0 1615.20841683 130% => OK
No of words: 388.0 315.596192385 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.39175257732 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43821085614 4.20363070211 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92067514256 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 176.041082164 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564432989691 0.561755894193 100% => OK
syllable_count: 623.7 506.74238477 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => 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: 102.789699008 49.4020404114 208% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 174.333333333 106.682146367 163% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.3333333333 20.7667163134 156% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.33333333333 7.06120827912 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.27207715737 0.244688304435 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0874886694876 0.084324248473 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0732071423483 0.0667982634062 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153330828448 0.151304729494 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0782038603891 0.056905535591 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.1 13.0946893788 153% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.0 50.2224549098 78% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.3001002004 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.57 12.4159519038 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.33 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 78.4519038076 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.78957915832 148% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 10.1190380762 146% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.