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. ( 3 )
It is still controversial that which possible solution to tackle congested roads should be applied by the government. 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 congestion. First, since recent road infrastructure in metropolises is inadequate, expanding road systems accommodates both cars and buses. For instance, Saigon has been improving most of the old road networks to provide more space for types of transport, and this leads to the alleviation of traffic jams significantly. Moreover, due to the rise in commuters travelling by individual vehicles, developing new roads connecting to large cities is enquired to meet demands of moving. If the governments did not spend on constructing the network of roads, they might struggle to overloads on road systems.
On the other hand, I believe that by taking advantage of public transit, the problem of congested roads can be solved more feasibly. Firstly, since public transportation can transport a number of passengers, the quantities of private vehicles on roads can be reduced significantly if inhabitants switch to use this means of transport. In fact, Europe has seen a dramatic decrease in the figure of cars when subway lines were constructed. This results in tackling traffic jams effectively. Secondly, as trains and subways offer commuters affordable commuting costs and precise moving schedules, they tend to leave their private cars at home, and travel by such modes transport. Thus, alleviating the high volume of traffic on road networks, and traffic congestion might be relieved successfully.
In conclusion, while the development of road infrastructure might lead to the reduction of traffic jams, I argue that the construction of train and subway systems is more effective.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, thus, while, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, it is true, 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: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1682.0 1615.20841683 104% => OK
No of words: 313.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.37380191693 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09854414506 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 176.041082164 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575079872204 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 504.9 506.74238477 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.10420841683 285% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.9500596002 49.4020404114 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.142857143 106.682146367 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3571428571 20.7667163134 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.2857142857 7.06120827912 146% => 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 : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.246068536994 0.244688304435 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0865561647523 0.084324248473 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0434789480344 0.0667982634062 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.152018760815 0.151304729494 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0206980699016 0.056905535591 36% => 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: 15.0 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 50.2224549098 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.47 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 78.4519038076 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.