Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
There has been a colossal upsurge in prodigies discussing the topic of government funds should be allocated for constructing railways rather than roads. Although investing in any type of infrastructure is bring benefits to society, I personally agree with the above statements and will be analyzing my viewpoint in the following paragraph.
First and foremost, raising money for railways is astonishingly beneficial for our society. Workers no longer stand in a long queue to wait for their turn. Secondly, transportation on railways such as trains can be ameliorated not only in the design but also in the operating machines. This improvement can make these trains move faster but still guarantee the safety of the customers. Thirdly, splashing money on railway networks can reduce traffic congestion during peak hours. This trend not only helps people not be stuck in a crowd for a long time but also enhances the air quality and mitigates noise pollution. For instance, the index of fresh air in Japan, and London are higher than in other countries which have poor railway systems such as India, and Vietnam.
Moreover, expanding and developing the roads can cost authorities an arm and a leg, which is much higher than investing in the railway network. Because of the tremendous number of vehicles on the road on a daily basis, which requires the government to reconstruct the road annually. Furthermore, it is not the optimal solution because the huge number of commuters can affect adversely the environment and diseases such as respiratory ailments, and asthma. Obviously, the accidents related to traffic have been existing more on the road when compared with the railway networks. Finally, people can save a bunch of money if altering using the railway system and even it is convenient and comfortable.
In conclusion, investing money in a railway network or road system is have their own merit which aims to boost the living standard of society. Nevertheless, I am wholeheartedly biased toward the above statement and believe that the advantages we can earn from investing in railways outweigh the disadvantages.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 71, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
... in a railway network or road system is have their own merit which aims to boost the...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, still, third, thirdly, for instance, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 24.0651302605 54% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 41.998997996 93% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1783.0 1615.20841683 110% => OK
No of words: 343.0 315.596192385 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19825072886 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92510646335 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 176.041082164 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.583090379009 0.561755894193 104% => OK
syllable_count: 547.2 506.74238477 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.6977917212 49.4020404114 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.4375 106.682146367 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4375 20.7667163134 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.3125 7.06120827912 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.230123680461 0.244688304435 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0701585150258 0.084324248473 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0430395735182 0.0667982634062 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.139531302423 0.151304729494 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0360665534354 0.056905535591 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.0946893788 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 50.2224549098 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.4159519038 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.28 8.58950901804 108% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 78.4519038076 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.