Some cities create housing areas by providing taller buildings. Others create housing by building houses on a wider area of land. Which solution is better?
In some countries, governments provide accommodations for citizens by building taller houses, while others expand living areas to construct buildings for people. Personally, I believe that expanding building areas seem to be not effective than making higher houses. This essay will provide suitable reasons with examples for my opinion.
There are many reasons why creating taller buildings is better. First of all, the important advantage is that governments can control population size easily by allowing a huge number of citizens to live in small areas. For example, in Japan, nearly two thousand people can live comfortably just in one hundred kilometer squares. This helps the government solve the overpopulation problem, which is a major threat in lots of nations nowadays. Secondly, by gathering mass population in one city, companies can hire many employees, which solves the scarcity of work-forces in that area. As a result, these companies will gain huge profits so they can pay employees higher salaries to improve their living conditions. This increases these cities' development rapidly.
On the other hand, If we expand areas for constructs, workers will chop thousand of trees to have lands for making accommodations. This causes pollution heavily and in long term, the people might suffer lots of issues such as flooding, weather changes, drought, or even earth-quake. Moreover, despite expanding areas is still a good choice to help citizens have space to live, but it is not as effective as making taller buildings for people. It is because they need to construct longer period and the materials cost more than build group houses.
In conclusion, I believe that creating large buildings is outweigh expanding fields to construct houses, despite this method still relate some drawbacks.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 736, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'cities'' or 'city's'?
Suggestion: cities'; city's
...living conditions. This increases these cities development rapidly. On the other hand...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 73, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a thousand'.
Suggestion: a thousand
...areas for constructs, workers will chop thousand of trees to have lands for making accom...
^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 59, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'outweighed'.
Suggestion: outweighed
...elieve that creating large buildings is outweigh expanding fields to construct houses, d...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, while, as for, as to, for example, in conclusion, such as, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 41.998997996 74% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1528.0 1615.20841683 95% => OK
No of words: 283.0 315.596192385 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.39929328622 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10153676581 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77132742842 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 176.041082164 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.614840989399 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 457.2 506.74238477 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.3203749823 49.4020404114 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.866666667 106.682146367 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8666666667 20.7667163134 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.5333333333 7.06120827912 149% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
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: 0.220123842665 0.244688304435 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0781935070444 0.084324248473 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0804193978722 0.0667982634062 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140844287921 0.151304729494 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0408839895034 0.056905535591 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.0946893788 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 50.2224549098 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.04 12.4159519038 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.58950901804 103% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 78.4519038076 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => 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.