Many major cities are facing a housing crisis as they cannot provide enough land for new buildings. Some local governments believe the problem could be solved by reassigning park land for residential development, because this land would be better used for housing.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, accommodation shortage is an urgent issue in plenty of major cities. In order to deal with that, numerous authorities assume that parkland would be better transferred to serve residential purposes. From my perspective, I do not encourage it as an effective and thorough solution to the housing issue.
First of all, city parks are significant open spaces that play a vital role in social and well-being, removing them may arise plenty of adverse impacts on the life quality of city-dwellers. As a matter of fact, green spaces serve as a lung of the cities to clean the air, attenuate noise and cool down the atmosphere. Harming floral habitats will associate with multiple types of pollution and affect negatively public health. Moreover, the availability of parks encourages active lifestyles where residents can come and perform physical exercises, meet each other, and foster a sense of community. Therefore, cities with integrated extensive park areas are usually more attractive places to live and work than the ones with only non-emotional artificial constructions.
Second, creating more settlements for citizens can not serve the problems of urbanization from its root. The main reason accredits to the housing crisis is the disparity between metropolitan cities and their neighboring rural areas. The advantages of more opportunities for higher-value occupations, better social facilities, and higher living standards in the major cities lead to the tendency to migrate and be centralized in one area. Thereby, establishing more buildings even worsens the issues, attracting more people to shift towards the cities, and creating a burden on the economy and living environment of the locals.
In conclusion, I believe parkland is never a suitable alternative for novel residential buildings. Instead, actions regarding developing the infrastructure of surrounding outskirts of the cities with well-connected transport facilities are possibly more practical and accurate.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, so, therefore, well, in conclusion, as a matter of fact, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 24.0651302605 42% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1691.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 301.0 315.596192385 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.61794019934 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14666875691 2.80592935109 112% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.654485049834 0.561755894193 117% => OK
syllable_count: 539.1 506.74238477 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.595918157 49.4020404114 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.785714286 106.682146367 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.14285714286 7.06120827912 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => 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: 0.168009509408 0.244688304435 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0520892684113 0.084324248473 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0427016889758 0.0667982634062 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0973532021326 0.151304729494 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0332492783147 0.056905535591 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 13.0946893788 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 50.2224549098 66% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.32 12.4159519038 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.82 8.58950901804 126% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 78.4519038076 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => 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.