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? (2)
It is still controversial that which possible solution to tackle congested roads 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 trains and subway lines is a more feasible measure.
On the one hand, there are several reasons why constructing 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 the network of 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 the density of private means of transport. Secondly, there is a dramatic rise in commuter numbers from suburban areas to metropolises for work if the government did not spend on developing new roads, travelling overloads would be almost inevitable.
On the other hand, I believe that allocating the government’s funds for public transport is more effective to ease traffic congestions. First, since railway 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 relieve traffic density for road network, 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 trains and subways, car numbers might considerably decrease. Thus, traffic jams on roads 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 380, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ish, have built public transportation to relieve traffic density for road network...
^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... traffic jams on roads can be tackled. In conclusion, while the development of ...
^^^
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: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => 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: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1647.0 1615.20841683 102% => OK
No of words: 306.0 315.596192385 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38235294118 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99563953258 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 176.041082164 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581699346405 0.561755894193 104% => OK
syllable_count: 503.1 506.74238477 99% => 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: 50.9435281027 49.4020404114 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.25 106.682146367 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5 20.7667163134 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.0833333333 7.06120827912 185% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => 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: 0.202037414316 0.244688304435 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0839647908755 0.084324248473 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0442655038109 0.0667982634062 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135990200669 0.151304729494 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0335627719205 0.056905535591 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 13.0946893788 128% => 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: 14.22 12.4159519038 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 78.4519038076 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.78957915832 138% => 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.