Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.
Governments are born to serve people. Some say that government should address the problem of today, because it can result in immediate benefit for locals, and further preventing the future crisis caused by the problem of today. If a city have a huge traffic jam during rush hour, the way to solve the problem is to build a public transportation for commuters, reducing the traffic flow. It is, sometimes, true, but considering the long-term metropolitan development, this opinion is questionable. If we only focus on the traffic problem of today and ignore the importance of urban planning, this solution for today will be the problem of future. Thus, I reckon the government should prioritize the problem of the future.
The solution of problem of today is usually myopic and tragic, causing more severe plague, hardly solved in the future. The government willing to deal with the problem of today only focus on one aspect and does not notice other derivative issues following the solution damaging the future development of cities. Having the example mentioned above, the traffic jam, we have to exam the problem carefully. Due to the public transportation system covering whole city, we need more examination for the routes, station locations, and population density, making the problem can be solved completely. Governments need more data or public voice to evaluate whether the price of the tickets are reasonable. The vehicles should be electric buses or internal combustion buses. It is very complicated to diagnose a REAL problem by a subtle current issue.
In order to solve traffic jam, our local government introduce a on-road bus system, BRT, to be the solution. The government expected to see benefit by its high people-carrying capacity and its low price construction. Without attracting people to take the bus and reducing the traffic flow, however, the system actually caused more problem of traffic jam, because its huge body occupied a pathway that other private can not drive but the pathway were for the private vehicles before the system built. Citizens living in the city still remain the same living mode, but the buses take a roadway without riding many people to achieve the target to solve the traffic jam. Instead, it strengthen the level of traffic jam.
Because the government only concern a little problem so that they can take this accomplishment to be a good resume for the mayor’s reelection. Because the mayor regards each problem as an independent event rather than consecutive chain events. We, citizens, suffer. Before we benefits from BRT, building the system causes more serious trouble like severe traffic jam around construction sites— a dark period that citizens are reluctant to experience the inconvenience. That the way to solve it is to optimize public transportation for commute does not ring true. We rather not take BRT but UBER. Thus, the government should prioritize the problem of the future— I agree with the state.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-19 | jason123 | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-18 | Himanshu Sharma | 66 | view |
| 2019-12-30 | PFF TAHSAN | 50 | view |
| 2019-12-26 | tg763622253 | 58 | view |
| 2019-12-06 | sudesh tiwari | 58 | view |
- Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. 50
- To reverse a decline in listener numbers our owners have decided that WWAC must change from its current rock music format The decline has occurred despite population growth in our listening area but that growth has resulted mainly from people moving here 71
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 63, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...fic jam, our local government introduce a on-road bus system, BRT, to be the sol...
^
Line 9, column 64, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ic jam, our local government introduce a on-road bus system, BRT, to be the solut...
^^
Line 9, column 681, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'strengthens'?
Suggestion: strengthens
...t to solve the traffic jam. Instead, it strengthen the level of traffic jam. Becaus...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 718, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...it strengthen the level of traffic jam. Because the government only concern a li...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 282, Rule ID: NON3PRS_VERB[2]
Message: The pronoun 'we' must be used with a non-third-person form of a verb: 'benefit'
Suggestion: benefit
...events. We, citizens, suffer. Before we benefits from BRT, building the system causes m...
^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 300, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ns, suffer. Before we benefits from BRT, building the system causes more serious ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, however, if, may, so, still, then, thus, i reckon
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.3162921348 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 33.0505617978 76% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 12.9106741573 209% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2514.0 2235.4752809 112% => OK
No of words: 485.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18350515464 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69283662038 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77703715874 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 241.0 215.323595506 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496907216495 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 788.4 704.065955056 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 60.9930619005 60.3974514979 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.56 118.986275619 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.56 5.21951772744 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.363678117706 0.243740707755 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103425108115 0.0831039109588 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0879029708742 0.0758088955206 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.243019381074 0.150359130593 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.109925251818 0.0667264976115 165% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.1392134831 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 100.480337079 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 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: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.