Today, the quality of life in large cities is decreasing. Discuss the causes and solutions.
The global phenomenon of urbanisation from the beginning of industrialisation to the present day has brought opportunity and prosperity, albeit at a cost in the quality of life. With an increasing city population, the complexity of the challenges also increases, the causes and solutions for this are outlined below.
The causes for the decrease in the quality of life are paradoxically the prosperity endowed on such metropolitan centres. Their growth is largely due to the increase of opportunities on offer, which in turn increases their attractiveness, essentially they are trapped in a positive self enforcing cycle. However, this eventually leads to a decrease in the quality of life as the city can experience overcrowding, exorbitant property prices, and increased vulnerability to terrorist attacks. For example the density of London makes it a more efficient place to attack, when compared to a smaller city such as Bradford. Therefore, due to continuous growth and prosperity, urban citizens, especially the less well off, often experience a lower standard of living.
Considering the solutions, greater investment in public transport would ease traffic congestion, as would bike lanes. In theory this would reduce air pollution, and possibly improve the well-being of the population if they did adopt a more active lifestyle and cycle to work. To counter violent terrorist attacks, cities could embark on CCTV installations, so as to closely monitor for threats. For example, it is said, the CCTV in London has foiled many potential attacks, and therefore greatly increased the security of its citizens.
To conclude, a wealthy city attracts large population inflows, which then cause pressure on existing infrastructure and security. Various solutions exist to mitigate such drawbacks, nevertheless an indefinite solution has yet to be found.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 358, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...ies could embark on CCTV installations, so as to closely monitor for threats. For exampl...
^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'however', 'if', 'nevertheless', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'well', 'as to', 'for example', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.270186335404 0.268076937826 101% => OK
Verbs: 0.139751552795 0.116061578633 120% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0807453416149 0.0759168565197 106% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0590062111801 0.0366838410393 161% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0217391304348 0.0131127313244 166% => OK
Prepositions: 0.11801242236 0.155750635184 76% => OK
Participles: 0.0341614906832 0.0379272487307 90% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.21359454577 2.65546596893 121% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0403726708075 0.0210936926555 191% => Less infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.0 0.00175180941692 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.105590062112 0.0948980150116 111% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0155279503106 0.00437022459523 355% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00931677018634 0.00967000014798 96% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1861.0 1161.00487805 160% => OK
No of words: 285.0 196.9 145% => OK
Chars per words: 6.5298245614 5.90752243213 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 3.73763899035 110% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.438596491228 0.337110787985 130% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.368421052632 0.247514529752 149% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.284210526316 0.171178102325 166% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.20350877193 0.112407865282 181% => Too many words length more than 8 chars.
Word Length SD: 3.21359454577 2.65546596893 121% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 106.607317073 165% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.617543859649 0.546246751206 113% => OK
Word variations: 69.0746120209 49.3433353143 140% => OK
How many sentences: 13.0 8.93414634146 146% => OK
Sentence length: 21.9230769231 23.0094962315 95% => OK
Sentence length SD: 25.034177821 42.9750493124 58% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.153846154 135.714022679 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9230769231 23.0094962315 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.846153846154 0.689975730869 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.84146341463 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.48048780488 68% => OK
Readability: 58.7651821862 47.7609492067 123% => OK
Elegance: 1.91549295775 2.94281807926 65% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.450057391344 0.418131533498 108% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.105938413886 0.181151798455 58% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0774829851905 0.0850326197045 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.582290864365 0.706616315825 82% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.11864998564 0.157042692854 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.187763966326 0.228904883108 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.122766377141 0.108899403657 113% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.365058452443 0.367819155151 99% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.165412767793 0.0812612215331 204% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.290784626849 0.316326947829 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.14403506172 0.0921553760075 156% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 3.70731707317 243% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 1.14146341463 263% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.08536585366 24% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 5.0 3.16585365854 158% => OK
Negative topic words: 1.0 0.956097560976 105% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 3.02926829268 33% => OK
Total topic words: 7.0 7.1512195122 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.