It is argued that receiving financial support from the government and on a regular basis is liable to discourage the jobless from finding employment. Moreover, schemes of this nature are highly likely to encumber a country with heavy financial burdens. The given assertion will be discussed in detail before drawing a conclusion.
To begin with, the most cogent arguments against the efficacy of this system is concerned with motivation. To put it differently, if people are assured that there is no obligation for them to work, they are liable to feel demotivated and hopeless thereby, abandoning all their efforts altogether. In other words, being supported by authorities can easily jeopardize the chances of future employment prospects for the unemployed people would no longer feel obliged to secure a job. An instance of this is also evident among the affluent who may find it pointless to look for a profession as they are already provided for by their families.
Yet another rational justification is that large-scale and demanding initiatives like this can easily damage the national economy. Simply put, governments would have no choice but to distribute a sizeable amount of national monetary resources among those who cannot provide for their family members and have to rely on others. More specifically, authorities would have to tap into their tax revenues in order to keep up with the financial demands of the unemployed. This in turn is bound to affect the economy adversely since tax payers' money would be spent unwisely.
To conclude, I am inclined to believe that state pension for jobless citizens is by means a judicious plan as the reverberations are likely to cascade through the entire economy, taking its toll on the money received from tax earnings. Furthermore, guaranteed to be supported all the time, people would no longer feel motivated to seek employment and secure a steady income. 
It  
is argued
 that receiving financial support from the  
government
 and on a regular basis is liable to discourage the jobless from finding employment.  
Moreover
, schemes of this nature are  
highly
 likely to encumber a country with heavy financial burdens. The  
given
 assertion will  
be discussed
 in detail  
before
 drawing a conclusion.
To  
begin
 with, the most cogent arguments against the efficacy of this system  
is concerned
 with motivation. To put it  
differently
, if  
people
  are assured
 that there is no obligation for them to work, they are liable to feel demotivated and hopeless thereby, abandoning all their efforts altogether.  
In other words
,  
being supported
 by authorities can  
easily
 jeopardize the chances of future employment prospects for the unemployed  
people
 would no longer feel obliged to secure a job. An instance of this is  
also
 evident among the affluent who may find it pointless to look for a profession as they are already provided for by their families. 
Yet
 another rational justification is that large-scale and demanding initiatives like this can  
easily
 damage the national economy.  
Simply
 put,  
governments
 would have no choice  
but
 to distribute a sizeable amount of national monetary resources among those who cannot provide for their family members and  
have to
 rely on others. More  
specifically
, authorities would  
have to
 tap into their tax revenues in order to  
keep
 up with the financial demands of the unemployed. This in turn  
is bound
 to affect the economy  
adversely
 since tax payers' money would  
be spent
  unwisely
. 
To conclude
, I  
am inclined
 to believe that state pension for jobless citizens is by means a judicious plan as the reverberations are likely to cascade through the entire economy, taking its toll on the money received from tax earnings.  
Furthermore
, guaranteed to  
be supported
 all the time,  
people
 would no longer feel motivated to seek employment and secure a steady income. 
7.5Linking words, meeting the goal of 7 or more
7.5Repeated words, meeting the goal of 3 or fewer
7.5Mistakes