Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems.
To what extent do you agree or disagree? What other measures do you think might be effective?
Over the past decades, increasing traffic congestion and air pollution have become two major crises that many countries around the world are facing. To address these issues, some people believe that a rise in petrol price is the most effective approach, I, however, contend that other viable alternatives merit serious consideration.
Proponents opine that considerable cost of petrol acts as a deterrent, discouraging people to drive their own vehicles. They, indeed, are of the opinion that the number of cars on the roads is directly related to the amount of pollution up in the air. Therefore, if the residents of megacities stop using their private cars, not only will the harmful air pollution be mitigated but also dwellers experience less traffic volume on the roads.
Despite the benefit associated with this approach, the idea of increasing petrol expenditure is not without additional financial burden on governments. People’s growing interest to use public transport systems instead of their cars causes authorities to dedicate a generous budget to this sector to incorporate more buses and trains, recruit more staffs, and enhance the infrastructures.
However, there are other workable solutions that seem to be more fruitful than augmentation of petroleum expenses to cope with pollution and traffic issues. To begin with, if societies invest money wisely on improving the quality of oil products or substituting traditional types of fuels by renewable energies, alleviation of air pollution will be undeniable. Furthermore, governments could both impose tougher rules and develop roads’ infrastructures to control traffic jams. By introduction of car-free districts, widening roads, and adding more traffic lights, for example, the number of vehicles on the roads will be diminished and big cities will be less congested.
To conclude, that increasing petrol prices is the most beneficial method to deal with high traffic congestion and pollution is a preposterous idea, as it pressurizes the nations to hugely invest fund on public transportation. Other possibilities like setting out regulations and roads’ infrastructural improvements are definitely more advantageous.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, so, therefore, well, for example, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1878.0 1615.20841683 116% => OK
No of words: 331.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.67371601208 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26537283232 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16797300731 2.80592935109 113% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 176.041082164 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.625377643505 0.561755894193 111% => OK
syllable_count: 584.1 506.74238477 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 5.43587174349 18% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => 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: 38.6619394512 49.4020404114 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.461538462 106.682146367 135% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4615384615 20.7667163134 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.46153846154 7.06120827912 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.149600185865 0.244688304435 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0521035147473 0.084324248473 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0283953645643 0.0667982634062 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0828939372333 0.151304729494 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0259379377164 0.056905535591 46% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.0 13.0946893788 137% => 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: 10.6 8.58950901804 123% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 78.4519038076 153% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.