Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Fast and safe transportation system and improved communication are two important aspects of the development of a country. Every government wants its citizens to commute safely and faster while the trade and business also depend on a solid transportation system. Thus when the question arises whether a government should focus on improving its railways or roads, people seems like have divided opinions. I personally agree that a government should spend more money on railways system as it is better to develop the railway transpiration system than developing roads.
Fast of all railways offers safe commuting both for the citizens and traders. The numbers of road accidents and casualties road vehicles cause in many countries are far more than that of accidents in the railway system. Thus investing more on a safe way of commuting is a much more prudent idea. Rails cause comparatively less environmental damage while the road vehicles are the main reason for increasing pollution around the world.
Second, rails can carry hundreds of people and several tonnes of goods while road transports can carry only a few people or fewer amounts of products at a time. Some shuttle trains are many times faster than that of private cars and public buses. Thus improved railways would save peoples’ valuable time every day. Thirdly, rail lines are usually away from the main cities and that is why some busy cities have no other alternatives than to improve their rail transportation system. Express trains can reduce the congestions in many cities and more investment to improve the railways is the only possible solutions in cities where a large number of people live in.
Finally, the population of the world is increasing rapidly and that is why investing more money on faster and safer transportation system is more logical than investing in the older transportation system. Railways will be future in transportation and investing on it is the better choice for any government.
In conclusion, I believe that a government, either in a developed or a developing country, should invest to build a safer, faster and more reliable transportation system and railways thus should always get a priority over the roads.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-30 | Dungphung | 56 | view |
| 2020-01-29 | BIBHU KALITA | 11 | view |
| 2020-01-29 | tranhien297 | 61 | view |
| 2020-01-28 | pateldhruv1708 | 73 | view |
| 2020-01-26 | geforce | 61 | view |
- The diagram below shows the typical stages of consumer goods manufacturing including the process by which information is fed back to earlier stages to enable adjustment 59
- The two graphs show the main sources of energy in the USA in the 1980s and the 1990s. 73
- The table below shows the results of surveys in 2000, 2005 and 2010 about one university. 11
- Do you support that the nuclear technology should be used for constructive purposes? 35
- The charts below show the percentage of water used for different purposes in six areas of the world. 81
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 263, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...epend on a solid transportation system. Thus when the question arises whether a gove...
^^^^
Line 1, column 468, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'railways'' or 'railway's'?
Suggestion: railways'; railway's
...a government should spend more money on railways system as it is better to develop the r...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 637, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...only possible solutions in cities where a large number of people live in. Finally, the populat...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, second, so, third, thirdly, thus, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 10.4138276553 173% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 24.0651302605 54% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 8.3376753507 228% => Less nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1868.0 1615.20841683 116% => OK
No of words: 360.0 315.596192385 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18888888889 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35587717469 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88987162772 2.80592935109 103% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 176.041082164 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.561755894193 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 584.1 506.74238477 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.384769539078 0% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.6802747365 49.4020404114 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.75 106.682146367 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 20.7667163134 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.3125 7.06120827912 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.140261885456 0.244688304435 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.053276190406 0.084324248473 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0698357340023 0.0667982634062 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0876620656712 0.151304729494 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0601724318587 0.056905535591 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.0946893788 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 50.2224549098 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.4159519038 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.58950901804 95% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 78.4519038076 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.