Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: in twenty years there will be fewer cars on the road than there are today.
Once I was a child, I read in a magazine that the speed of achieving new information will be doubled in 20 years. I was perplexed then, but now with this growth of technology, everything seems to be possible. I believe that there would be many changes in 20 years, but one thing that is not going to change is the number of cars on the streets. Due to many reasons, I will explore in the following essay, I think there will be more cars.
First of all, as you know, the number of people living in the world is drastically increasing. So in near future, there would be more people who want to have a car to commute daily. Therefore, it would be more car on the roads. But there is still a problem, that the future cities do not have the capacity to a huge number of cars. Since human always finds a way for his problem, we might have bigger cities with more sophisticated facilities in future. The cities which have better roads and streets or may have some many stories highways. Considering the progressing technologies, maybe there will be another kind of cars which do not have the problem of making pollution for the air, or maybe some modern cars that humans will find a parking space for them easily such as cars who just have space for one person. So, as some fiction books of the past became true nowadays, such as the story of going to the moon, it is possible that this kind of imaginations became true some days leading to having more cars on the roads.
Additionally, one major problem for cars is that they are dependent on fossil fuels. Because of this reason, most scientists think that mankind will use it up the fossil fuels rapidly and there will be no more fuels for cars in the near future, therefore, cars will be useless, and nobody could drive a car in 20 years. On the other hand, I think differently. I’m to some extent sure that the scientists will find other kinds of fuels for future cars or may make different cars. As you know, nowadays more companies are looking for renewable energies to replace fossil fuels. The example of some electric-based cars is showing good progress in this field. Consequently, by substituting fossil fuels with other fuels, or by making more advanced cars based on other kinds of energy powers, the problem of having no fossil fuels in future, would be no matter of wondering leading to having more cars on the streets.
In conclusion, as mentioned above, I think most of the issues of today like finishing fossil fuels, small capacity of streets, and not having a good structure for cities to deal with a greater number of cars, would be solved. Thus, more people would use cars and there would be more automobiles on the streets.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 443, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...ties with more sophisticated facilities in future. The cities which have better roads and...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 831, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
..., the problem of having no fossil fuels in future, would be no matter of wondering leadin...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, if, look, may, so, still, then, therefore, thus, i think, in conclusion, kind of, such as, you know, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 15.1003584229 152% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 9.8082437276 204% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 12.0 13.8261648746 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 43.0788530466 70% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 52.1666666667 128% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.0752688172 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2213.0 1977.66487455 112% => OK
No of words: 488.0 407.700716846 120% => OK
Chars per words: 4.53483606557 4.8611393121 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70007681154 4.48103885553 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45025676824 2.67179642975 92% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 212.727598566 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.430327868852 0.524837075471 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 681.3 618.680645161 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.51630824373 92% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 9.59856630824 115% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.51792114695 171% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.86738351254 375% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6003584229 102% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.298131837 48.9658058833 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.380952381 100.406767564 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2380952381 20.6045352989 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.52380952381 5.45110844103 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 11.8709677419 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.205735431025 0.236089414692 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0697401367018 0.076458572812 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0431506881075 0.0737576698707 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.137568750821 0.150856017488 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0252641594252 0.0645574589148 39% => 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: 11.5 11.7677419355 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 58.1214874552 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.1575268817 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.29 10.9000537634 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.27 8.01818996416 91% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 86.8835125448 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.