Recently, the phenomenon of transportation infrastructure in large cities and its corresponding impacts has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of building roads is highly beneficial, such an issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that improving public transportation by the government can be a plus, and I will investigate that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, expending public transportation can provide the city with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that merits of saving time, as well as avoiding traffic congestion, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered the importance of the transportation system in metropolitan cities. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both building roads by the government and increasing the ways of public transportation apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of the environment, building more roads might increase the consequences of environmental issues. Moreover, fundamental aspects of outer city highways relate to this reality that the demerits of cutting the trees pertain to air pollution in big cities. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of environmental issues correlated negatively with creating roads between cities. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of building a better transportation network.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of developing the transportation systems in large cities far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of the government's transportation strategies prove the significance of transportation improvements, but also pinpoint building roads implications.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 232, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'governments'' or 'government's'?
Suggestion: governments'; government's
...acks. Not only do the advantages of the governments transportation strategies prove the sig...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.5418719212 85% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 6.10837438424 82% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 20.9802955665 86% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 31.9359605911 125% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 5.75862068966 313% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1690.0 1207.87684729 140% => OK
No of words: 289.0 242.827586207 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.84775086505 5.00649968141 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 3.92707691288 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.54669761158 2.71678728327 131% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 139.433497537 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.608996539792 0.580463131201 105% => OK
syllable_count: 523.8 379.143842365 138% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.5024630542 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.0505473044 50.4703680194 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.833333333 104.977214359 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0833333333 20.9669160288 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41666666667 7.25397266985 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 6.9802955665 143% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 2.75862068966 36% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 2.91625615764 34% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.205510897659 0.242375264174 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0728502810628 0.0925447433944 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0345352210227 0.071462118173 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118183260349 0.151781067708 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0206118576638 0.0609392437508 34% => 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: 18.2 12.6369458128 144% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 53.1260098522 57% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 10.9458128079 137% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.95 11.5310837438 147% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.45 8.32886699507 125% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 55.0591133005 187% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.94827586207 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.3980295567 112% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.5123152709 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 77.7777777778 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 70.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.