As cities expanding, some people claim governments should look forward creating better networks of public transportation
available for everyone rather than building more roads for vehicle owning population. What’s your opinion? Give some examples or experience to support.
Recently, the growth of public transportation by governments has sparked an ongoing controversy, which inevitably leads to a moot question "is it better to build more roads for drivers or making public transport bigger?". Whereas it is a widely held view that improving the public transport system is highly beneficial, I will discuss the controversial aspects of that throughout this essay.
From the economical standpoint, transportation developments are bound up inextricably with governments policies, which indicate they lead to both public transporting systems and expanded cities. As a well-known example, a longitudinal study conducted by eminent scientists in 2014 demonstrates the relationship between globalization and subway systems as well as an exponential increase in building more roads. Their academic criticism was impressive. Consequently, my empirical evidence presented thus far support the contention that the likelihood of occurring city developments, is correlated positively with not only a bigger public transportation system but also more roads.
Within the realm of sociology science, without the slightest doubt, efficient transporting systems attribute to a bigger network, in that it would come down to subways, buses, and public transporting organizations. A salient example of such attribution is individuals' cars which is a cause for concern since it was mistaken to take building more roads for granted. Had there been a paradigm shift earlier, scholars might have had the opportunity to pinpoint traffic problems. Hence, it is reasonable to infer the pivotal role of public transporting systems.
To conclude, as for myself, as the saying goes "all's well that ends well," after analyzing what elaborated above, I entirely agree that government must remain accountable for improving public transportation systems. However, we perceive that, with the benefit of hindsight, the more we research the further we discover.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 78, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...ying goes 'alls well that ends well,' after analyzing what elaborated above,...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, hence, however, if, so, thus, well, whereas, as for, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.5418719212 104% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 6.10837438424 65% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 20.9802955665 105% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 31.9359605911 106% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.75862068966 191% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1688.0 1207.87684729 140% => OK
No of words: 290.0 242.827586207 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.82068965517 5.00649968141 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12666770723 3.92707691288 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.317449273 2.71678728327 122% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 139.433497537 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.648275862069 0.580463131201 112% => OK
syllable_count: 506.7 379.143842365 134% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.57093596059 108% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.6157635468 130% => OK
Article: 4.0 1.56157635468 256% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 1.71428571429 233% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 3.65517241379 192% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.5024630542 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.7983987765 50.4703680194 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.666666667 104.977214359 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1666666667 20.9669160288 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.33333333333 7.25397266985 101% => 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 : 0.0 2.75862068966 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 2.91625615764 69% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.181099514007 0.242375264174 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.062575263017 0.0925447433944 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0661472239561 0.071462118173 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117556970714 0.151781067708 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0337835916985 0.0609392437508 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.1 12.6369458128 143% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 53.1260098522 73% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 10.9458128079 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.77 11.5310837438 145% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.33 8.32886699507 124% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 55.0591133005 183% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 9.94827586207 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.3980295567 112% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.5123152709 114% => 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.