Many countries spend a lot of money to make bicycles easier. Why ? Is it the best solution for transport problems ?
Nowadays, the amount of money has been spent on easy bicycle access by some nations to tackle traffic congestion. However, the most viable way for the problem is to limit the fossil fuel.
Today, most developing countries allocate its revenue to develop accessibility of bicycle to cope with the traffic density originated by the high rate of transport privatization. This is because, when facilities of bicycle are established, these attract citizens to use this transportation because of effectivity in peak times, reducing the proportion of private-transport owners, resulting a minor density of traffic. For example, Jakarta authorities’ funds accounting for 20 million rupias in 2018 had been spent on the bike ways, being effective for workers suffering from dense traffic when they went to the office, and this trend in 2019 decreased car ownership from 25% to 15%, impacting a decline of traffic congestion about 20%.
Nevertheless, the best solution to tackle dense road in some advancing nations is to budget the limitation of fossil usage as the fuel of various transportations. This is caused by if such a non-renewable resource is still well-known, the percentage of private transports will be increasingly higher, inclining the level of density of road. For instance, China regulated the revenue about 15 million dollars to reduce the usage of gasoline in some gas stations in 2020, being less popular, shrinking considerably the level of motorcycle riders and car drivers from a half to a quarter, then this regulation consequently decreased the intensity of bustle in road to a fifth.
In conclusion, limiting the fossil fuel is the feasible way for several nations to waste money to solve traffic congestion. As a result, this is more influence than making bicycles easier.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, however, if, nevertheless, so, still, then, well, for example, for instance, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 7.85571142285 13% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 10.4138276553 19% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 7.30460921844 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 9.0 24.0651302605 37% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1510.0 1615.20841683 93% => OK
No of words: 286.0 315.596192385 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27972027972 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08439176199 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 176.041082164 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.594405594406 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 468.9 506.74238477 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 16.0721442886 62% => 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: 28.0 20.2975951904 138% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 88.7952701443 49.4020404114 180% => OK
Chars per sentence: 151.0 106.682146367 142% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.6 20.7667163134 138% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.7 7.06120827912 166% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.18867707386 0.244688304435 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0788630527063 0.084324248473 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0383594742155 0.0667982634062 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120206477101 0.151304729494 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0383903800532 0.056905535591 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 13.0946893788 135% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 50.2224549098 86% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.94 12.4159519038 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.16 8.58950901804 118% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 78.4519038076 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.1190380762 130% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.