Should government build more road to allow more vehicle owner or improve the network of public transport?
The role of the government to build more roads to accommodate vehicles or to increase the network of public transportation sparked heated argument among certain group of people. Many believe that government should concentrate on building more roads. Others reject this notion and argue that democracy should focus more on improving the public transportation. In my opinion, improving the public transport is the best solution to overcome this problem. This essay would further elaborate both sides with examples and thus lead to a plausible conclusion.
To begin with, one of the most important issues in today's world is increase in the number of vehicles on the roads. Critics believe that possessing one's vehicle is the citizen choice and government should take appropriate actions to provide the space for them. For example, recently in Sydney due to the rapid increase in the number of vehicles from 20% to 60 % in last decade, government of Australian has taken initiative to build roads and accommodate increased motors on the roads.
On the other hand, there is a debate of arguments going to improve public commute services such as increase in buses, trains. Government has to start promoting advantages of public transport and its benefits to society and to our environment. It is the only way to reduce traffic congestion on roads. It will not only improve the public transport but also reduces the traffic jam and decrease the environment damage caused by poisonous gasses released from vehicles. Improving public transportation can also help people from all different classes including lower to upper middle class. For example, according to BBC channel, the newly built metro trains in India has reduced traffic problems from 50% to 20%. This example clearly exemplifies us there is a strong correlation between improve in public transportation and reduce in traffic jams.
According to the arguments aforementioned, one can reach out to conclusion that the benefits of strengthening transportation, infrastructure are indeed too good to ignore and further the government has to take steps to improve public modes of transport which not only reduces traffic but also decreases the global warming.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 149, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
... roads. Critics believe that possessing ones vehicle is the citizen choice and gover...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, so, then, thus, as to, for example, such as, in my opinion, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.5418719212 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 6.10837438424 115% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 8.36945812808 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 5.94088669951 84% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 20.9802955665 71% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 31.9359605911 188% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 5.75862068966 295% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1868.0 1207.87684729 155% => OK
No of words: 351.0 242.827586207 145% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32193732194 5.00649968141 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32839392791 3.92707691288 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90419843389 2.71678728327 107% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 139.433497537 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547008547009 0.580463131201 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 572.4 379.143842365 151% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.57093596059 102% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 2.0 1.56157635468 128% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.71428571429 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.931034482759 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.65517241379 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 12.6551724138 126% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.5024630542 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.6855686121 50.4703680194 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.75 104.977214359 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9375 20.9669160288 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.6875 7.25397266985 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 6.9802955665 129% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 2.75862068966 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 2.91625615764 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.375837357961 0.242375264174 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.123104467143 0.0925447433944 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104471051675 0.071462118173 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.216128584926 0.151781067708 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.141604972837 0.0609392437508 232% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 12.6369458128 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.1260098522 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.54236453202 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.9458128079 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 11.5310837438 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.0 8.32886699507 108% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 55.0591133005 174% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.94827586207 80% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.3980295567 100% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.5123152709 86% => 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.