Government should reduce their investment in arts, music and painting. Agree or disagree?
Recently, the phenomenon of reducing the investment in art sector and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of supporting the art sector is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined that the study of considering financial aid for art and music can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, putting money in art provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that merits of the governmental assistance in art, as well as boosting the revenue are inextricably bound up, according to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered the influence of financial aid in the art advancement. Thus beneficial ramifications of both promoting the cultural value and the popularity of artists apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of art, considering financial supports might increase the consequences of developing art value. Moreover, fundamental aspects of the governmental aid could relate to this reality that the demerits of spending money in art sector pertain to wasting the national investment. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of supporting the musicians financially is correlated negatively to reducing the capita income. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of equipping the galleries.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of reducing investment in art sectors such as music and painting far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of supporting them financially prove the significance of promoting the art value, but also pinpoint financial implications.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 408, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...f financial aid in the art advancement. Thus beneficial ramifications of both promot...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 6.10837438424 82% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 8.36945812808 84% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 20.9802955665 91% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 31.9359605911 128% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.75862068966 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1648.0 1207.87684729 136% => OK
No of words: 299.0 242.827586207 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.51170568562 5.00649968141 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 3.92707691288 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.23152390142 2.71678728327 119% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 139.433497537 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591973244147 0.580463131201 102% => OK
syllable_count: 523.8 379.143842365 138% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 3.65517241379 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 12.6551724138 87% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 20.5024630542 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 83.3427653064 50.4703680194 165% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.818181818 104.977214359 143% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.1818181818 20.9669160288 130% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.81818181818 7.25397266985 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 6.9802955665 100% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 2.75862068966 36% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 2.91625615764 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0607371413368 0.242375264174 25% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0271878465324 0.0925447433944 29% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0418253862494 0.071462118173 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0436893435659 0.151781067708 29% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0345638927178 0.0609392437508 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.1 12.6369458128 143% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 27.15 53.1260098522 51% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 10.9458128079 148% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 11.5310837438 130% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.52 8.32886699507 126% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 55.0591133005 191% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.94827586207 146% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.3980295567 123% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.5123152709 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 11.1111111111 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 10.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.