Richer countries often give money to poorer countries, but it does not solve poverty. Therefore, developed countries should give other types of help to poor countries rather than financial aid. To what extend do you agree or disagree?
There is a widely-held view among people regarding financial assistance from more affluent countries to developing ones. While there has been a growing body in favor of those monetary aids will not address poverty, I agree with this view for several reasons.
On the one hand, it is undoubtedly true that financial aid might be viewed as an immediate solution however, this can only be used for a temporary duration rather than being efficient in the long term. Monetary assistance from wealthier nations only sometimes reaches its target audiences, which are the poor and the needy. This happens due to corrupt governments that make the most of financial aid to serve their interests rather than to benefit their citizens. Therefore, the money will not be used for proper purposes.
On the other hand, there are some more effective and practical measures that advanced nations should be considered to invest in rather than loan money to other countries for the long-term perspective. Firstly, literacy is the foundation of community and economic development, leading to the fact that low literacy level is the main factor accounting for the continuous financial meltdown of underdeveloped countries. Therefore, if the younger generation of poor nations is assisted in receiving quality education from the richer ones, this would grant them an opportunity to achieve comprehensive personal development after being illuminated in their minds and thinking, which stimulates the country’s socioeconomic progression. Second, in light of the proliferation of technological advancement, the limited access to leading-edge technology is another reason that renders the nation’s economic growth ineffective. Hence, sharing advanced techniques from more prosperous countries will help the poor revolutionize working life, as driverless vehicles and labor-saving appliances perform intensive human labor and backbreaking tasks. This undoubtedly will facilitate the flow of products and services, enhancing economic vitality and maintaining social stability.
In conclusion, it might seem sensible to me that monetary aid would only act as a temporary remedy and there are other substantial ways to address this issue from a governmental perspective.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-25 | viet@2002 | 95 | view |
| 2023-07-19 | quan12341234 | 56 | view |
| 2023-05-07 | ngandaqueen | 73 | view |
| 2023-05-07 | ngandaqueen | 73 | view |
| 2023-04-12 | cinderel | 61 | view |
- Scientists say that in the future humanity will speak the same language Do you think this is a positive or negative social development 78
- The advantage brought by the spread of English as a global language will outweigh the disadvantages To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view 89
- Some people feel that manufactures and supermarkets have the responsibility to reduce to amount of packaging of goods While other argue that customers should avoid buying goods with a lot of packing Discuss both views and give your opinion 80
- Governments should make laws about people s nutrition and food choice Others argue that it is their choice Discuss both views and give your opinion 89
- In some countries governments are encouraging industries and businesses to move out of large cities and into regional areas Do you think the advantages of this development outweigh its disadvantages 89
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1265, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ality and maintaining social stability. In conclusion, it might seem sensible to...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, hence, however, if, regarding, second, so, therefore, while, in conclusion, in fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1912.0 1615.20841683 118% => OK
No of words: 337.0 315.596192385 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.67359050445 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28457229495 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08277616444 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 176.041082164 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.593471810089 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 599.4 506.74238477 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => 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: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 61.0290453694 49.4020404114 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.076923077 106.682146367 138% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.9230769231 20.7667163134 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.07692307692 7.06120827912 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.186923722458 0.244688304435 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.062783956664 0.084324248473 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0566831314981 0.0667982634062 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103325131183 0.151304729494 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0500564479803 0.056905535591 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.2 13.0946893788 139% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 50.2224549098 58% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.9 12.4159519038 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.22 8.58950901804 119% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 78.4519038076 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1265, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ality and maintaining social stability. In conclusion, it might seem sensible to...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, hence, however, if, regarding, second, so, therefore, while, in conclusion, in fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1912.0 1615.20841683 118% => OK
No of words: 337.0 315.596192385 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.67359050445 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28457229495 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08277616444 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 176.041082164 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.593471810089 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 599.4 506.74238477 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => 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: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 61.0290453694 49.4020404114 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.076923077 106.682146367 138% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.9230769231 20.7667163134 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.07692307692 7.06120827912 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.186923722458 0.244688304435 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.062783956664 0.084324248473 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0566831314981 0.0667982634062 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103325131183 0.151304729494 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0500564479803 0.056905535591 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.2 13.0946893788 139% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 50.2224549098 58% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.9 12.4159519038 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.22 8.58950901804 119% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 78.4519038076 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.