Traffic and housing problems could be solved by moving large companies, factories and their employees to the countryside. Do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, traffic and housing-related problems have become more debatable. While some think that all problems could be solved by moving large companies, factories, and people to the rural area, others disagree with this view. In this essay, I will explain both aspects of the statement and why I disagree with the given argument.
Those who believe that moving factories and employees to countrysides for solving traffic and housing-related obstacles people have their reasons. Firstly, if all big corporations move to villages, the usage of roads becomes lower, resulting in many costs will be saved. This may use to build new accommodations. Secondly, transportation in metropolitans become lower, leading to fewer pollutions. China, for instance, forcibly moved all companies to rural areas from one city in 2017. As a result, more people found their permanent living place and traffic on roads was lower as compared the past. Hence, the fewer companies are located in the main areas of towns, the low problems will occur in housing and conjunctions related.
On the other hand, others and I, however, think that it will create more problems if organizations moved to village areas. To begin with, costs of transportation for raw materials are increasing, resulting in fules’ use will rise. This may lead to more pollutions in unspoiled areas. In addition, many animals, birds, and others lost their habitat and homes. Research, for example, showed that nearly 85 species of animals and birds lost their places when 80 factories moved into their living area in Singapore. Therefore, the more companies move to the countrysides, the more damage will happen to the environment.
In conclusion, although it solves challenges in traffic and housing-related, it will create bizarre situations for other species and nature. In my words, despite solving traffic snd having related problems, it has more demerits. Therefore, it is not a good move and I disagree with the argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 578, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[3]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...ng place and traffic on roads was lower as compared the past. Hence, the fewer com...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, as a result, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1672.0 1615.20841683 104% => OK
No of words: 315.0 315.596192385 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30793650794 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92773464193 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 176.041082164 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55873015873 0.561755894193 99% => OK
syllable_count: 509.4 506.74238477 101% => 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: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => 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: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.3296729992 49.4020404114 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.0 106.682146367 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.5789473684 20.7667163134 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.52631578947 7.06120827912 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.67935871743 35% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 3.9879759519 301% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.30544664501 0.244688304435 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0863712695614 0.084324248473 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0773500406275 0.0667982634062 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192289024047 0.151304729494 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0530066965835 0.056905535591 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.0946893788 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 50.2224549098 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.3001002004 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.22 12.4159519038 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.84 8.58950901804 103% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 78.4519038076 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.