It would be argued that consuming a considerable amount of money on building new railway lines for very fast trains among cities is an essential action. In my opinion, however, it is more beneficial if government spend money on improving existing public transport, instead.
On the one hand, there are a number of reasons why some think that the expenditure on new railway networks are needed to be a large sums of money. However, I think the major reason for this issue is that fast trains between different cities will save a lot of time. First of all, this provide the opportunities for people who work at city center can live in suburb where they might feel more comfortable with no noise and air pollution. Secondly, fast trains will give everybody more time for morning exercises such as running, jogging, cycling, etc to in order to strengthen their health and get more energy before a whole working day or making themselves breakfast at home instead of eating on the way to the offices. Anyway, spend money on very fast trains seem to be really benefical for everybody.
On the other hand, I would argue that there will be a wide range of advantage on improving the existing public transport. Firstly, this will not cost a large amount of government’s budget as all we have to do is upgrade the old ones based on available facilities instead of building completely new networks. This can save hundreds to thousands dollars for administration to spend on the other emergent categories. Secondly, constructing on the existing transport will take less time than on the new one, it is because we just need to fix and improve what is already available before. Finally, due to the fact that upgrading the existing does not take too much time result in there will be less influence on inhabitants living around.
In conclusion, although some people think that there’s a lot of benefits if government spend more money on constructing new railway networks for fast trains, I personally believe that it is definitely not a mistake if that amount of money will be spent on improving the available public transport.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 133, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'sum'?
Suggestion: sum
...ilway networks are needed to be a large sums of money. However, I think the major re...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
anyway, finally, first, firstly, however, if, really, second, secondly, so, then, i think, in conclusion, such as, first of all, in my opinion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 24.0651302605 104% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => 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: 1759.0 1615.20841683 109% => OK
No of words: 362.0 315.596192385 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8591160221 5.12529762239 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36191444098 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71855908063 2.80592935109 97% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 176.041082164 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.533149171271 0.561755894193 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 553.5 506.74238477 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => 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: 27.0 20.2975951904 133% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 61.6810847263 49.4020404114 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.307692308 106.682146367 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.8461538462 20.7667163134 134% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.3846153846 7.06120827912 175% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => 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: 0.390941353381 0.244688304435 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.148764407913 0.084324248473 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101734273927 0.0667982634062 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.270296329097 0.151304729494 179% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0856829440222 0.056905535591 151% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 13.0946893788 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 50.2224549098 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 12.4159519038 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.58950901804 95% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 78.4519038076 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.1190380762 126% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.