Some people believe the government should spend money building train and subway lines to reduce traffic congestion. Others, however, think that building more and wider roads is a better way to reduce traffic congestion. Discuss both views and give your opinion
It is still controversial that which possible solution to ease traffic congestion should be applied by the government over past decades. Although it is true that developing road systems is likely to be a good method, I believe that investing in train and subway lines is a more feasible measure.
On the one hand, there are several reasons why building and widening more roads contribute to the reduction of traffic jams. Firstly, since road infrastructure in almost cities is often designed to accommodate the specific number of vehicles, expanding roads to provide more space for the increasing private vehicles, especially cars, is vitally necessary. For example, it has been proven that Ho Chi Minh city has been improving most of the prior road systems to handle traffic density. Secondly, there is a dramatic rise in commuter numbers from suburban areas to metropolises for work on a daily basis if the government did not spend on developing new roads, heavy traffic is inevitable.
On the other hand, I believe that spending the government’s funds on public transport is more effective to ease traffic congestions. First, since rail and subway systems are constructed underground, this allows traffic flows on roads to become less dense. In fact, almost large cities in developed countries, such as America and British, have built public transportation to reduce traffic density on road systems, which is really a positive way. Second, public transit is cost-effective and productive than private vehicles for commuters, so if these commuters are encouraged to travel to cities by rails and subways, car numbers might considerably decrease. Thus, traffic jams on road infrastructure can be tackled.
In conclusion, while the development of road infrastructure might leads to the reduction of traffic congestion, I argue that the construction of train and subway systems is more effective.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, really, second, secondly, so, still, thus, while, as to, for example, in conclusion, in fact, such as, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 13.1623246493 152% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1608.0 1615.20841683 100% => OK
No of words: 301.0 315.596192385 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34219269103 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00756763421 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 176.041082164 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581395348837 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 495.9 506.74238477 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => 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: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 47.014994653 49.4020404114 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.0 106.682146367 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0833333333 20.7667163134 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.0833333333 7.06120827912 185% => 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 : 0.0 3.9879759519 0% => 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: 0.27105913205 0.244688304435 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102328935027 0.084324248473 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0500745561533 0.0667982634062 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163652947565 0.151304729494 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.027169329395 0.056905535591 48% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 13.0946893788 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 50.2224549098 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.3001002004 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.99 12.4159519038 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.07 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 78.4519038076 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => 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.