In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Improvements of public transport systems are being taken into account by numerous national authorities. The case quickly becomes a global phenomenon which raises the question whether current transportations should be invested to upgrade or the budget must be spent on building modern train systems for quick movements between metropolises. Although both views are valid, I pursue that constructing new train systems is a positive trend due to its advantages.
There are some obvious explanations for people supporting the first statement. First, improvements in existing public transports can help reduce not only the rate but also geographical range of pollution. The reason for this is that this trend encourages citizens in metropolises, especially those which are major, to use public vehicles more. As a result, traffic congestion in town centres is likely to be mitigated, which is associated with the decrease of noise, dust and CO2. Moreover, this type of development which only focuses on the evolution of public vehicles is relatively cheap. These means of transportation can reuse current road systems without requirements of further enhancements.
In contrast, i believe that governments revenue should be spent wisely to accommodate the construction of an up-to-date railway system. There are significant benefits that outweigh improvements in current public means of transport when being considered carefully. To begin, these high-speed trains can travel up to 300 kilometres per hour but they are completely safe because of AI controllers, furthermore, this type of vehicle is affordable and can be massively adapted. The example can be seen clearly in terms of Japan where 70% of the population travels by trains and 50% of them are satisfied with their convenience. In addition, building modern railway systems can help governments prepare for further developments since these trains are suitable with the current trend and trading patterns with high demand for quantities and qualities of goods.
To put things in a nutshell, although many people believe that money should be spent on developing today's transport systems, i support the idea that instead, government revenue should be used for constructing entirely new modern railway lines because of their effective benefits.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 163, Rule ID: WHETHER[5]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "the question"?
Suggestion: whether
...ecomes a global phenomenon which raises the question whether current transportations should be inves...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 593, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this means' or 'These means'?
Suggestion: This means; These means
...of public vehicles is relatively cheap. These means of transportation can reuse current roa...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 14, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
... of further enhancements. In contrast, i believe that governments revenue should...
^
Line 3, column 29, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'governments'' or 'government's'?
Suggestion: governments'; government's
...ancements. In contrast, i believe that governments revenue should be spent wisely to accom...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 126, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
...on developing todays transport systems, i support the idea that instead, governme...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, if, moreover, so, in addition, in contrast, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 13.1623246493 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1955.0 1615.20841683 121% => OK
No of words: 351.0 315.596192385 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.5698005698 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32839392791 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02196889529 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.584045584046 0.561755894193 104% => OK
syllable_count: 591.3 506.74238477 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.1274739618 49.4020404114 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.333333333 106.682146367 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4 20.7667163134 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.73333333333 7.06120827912 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.01903807615 100% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 3.9879759519 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.272559355055 0.244688304435 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0900731947762 0.084324248473 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0638790606055 0.0667982634062 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.18017783761 0.151304729494 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.059169035671 0.056905535591 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 13.0946893788 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 50.2224549098 79% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.3001002004 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.32 12.4159519038 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.5 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 78.4519038076 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.