Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the above statement?
There is a recommendation that the rising fuel price would deter the growing congestion and pollution problems. For the following reason, I will give this claim a qualified yes.
Since oil was discovered and become the most important material of daily living, it occurs numerous traffic and environmental problems. The commonplace of motorcycles and vehicles has not only severed the congestion but also increased the emission of gasses. In order to undermine these problems, the direct way is to increase the toll of using these tools. Because of the rising price, the citizen would choose the alternative way, such as taking the republic transportation and walking. Besides minimizing the chances of driving, they are equally beneficial for health.
However, the augment of petrol could soar the cost of living. Given the salaries are stable, the rising petrol price would definitely be the burden of those people or industries who need to drive. The transporting industries, the tourism industries, and the taxi industries, for instance. Moreover, the high petrol price also influences the republic transportation. The swelling cost would eventually be the responsibility of the customers. People have to pay more for these facilities, and that, therefore, provokes the complaint.
I believe that the development of eco-knowledge is more important. The government could promulgate the shortage of driving and encourage citizen to take public transportation and walk. In Taiwan, the government set up the bicycle on the road. By the dissembling of the advantage of cycling, riding the bike now becomes the popular outdoor activity in Taiwan. This not only undercuts the problems of traffic and pollution but also advances the consensus of green earth.
In conclusion, rising petrol price could prevent the using of own vehicles, yet the ramifications are estimable. By the education of environmental protection, people would be more willing to limit their personal behavior.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 10, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ally beneficial for health. However, the augment of petrol could soar the cost of living...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, well, for instance, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 41.998997996 81% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1682.0 1615.20841683 104% => OK
No of words: 307.0 315.596192385 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.47882736156 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05386014987 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 176.041082164 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.579804560261 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 520.2 506.74238477 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.384769539078 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 2.52805611222 435% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 16.0721442886 124% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 20.2975951904 74% => OK
Sentence length SD: 24.5871409481 49.4020404114 50% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 84.1 106.682146367 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.35 20.7667163134 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 7.06120827912 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 3.4128256513 205% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.144356520984 0.244688304435 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0387234622765 0.084324248473 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0460817973434 0.0667982634062 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.078112881975 0.151304729494 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0365313326302 0.056905535591 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.0946893788 92% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 50.2224549098 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.91 12.4159519038 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.22 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 78.4519038076 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.1190380762 79% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 10.7795591182 74% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.