Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree? What other measures do you think might be effective?
Petroleum is the dominant fuel source for various vehicles nowadays. Therefore, a rise in its price is often suggested to reduce the growing number of conveyances on the road. However, although such intervention can have some effect on the problem, in my opinion, the possible detriments and the existence of better approaches to this issue proved the inadequateness of this strategy.
Upon initial inspection, the validity of this policy seems concrete, as an upturn in the price of gasoline will mitigate unnecessary usage of carbon-emit transports and entice more eco-friendly ways of commuting, such as walking and cycling, thus decreasing congestion and pollution. Despite this, it will also raise the price tag for many necessities due to the spike in the expense of the energy source used to transfer such goods. Additionally, a hike in the cost of fossil fuels will indirectly impede the productivity of the energy industry, leading to their inability to meet the production quota. This can have troubling consequences on many manufacturers' production and logistical efforts, further worsening the situation.
On account of the cited drawbacks, it is inadvisable to avoid intentional involvement in the energy market. Alternatively, policies regarding the development of public transportation, for instance, buses and subways, to discourage the use of private vehicles would prove to be more advantageous for reducing participation in traffic. A system of mass commuting services consisting of buses, trains and subways that is safe, convenient and widespread will attract many commuters. Moreover, such a system will be substantially easier to organize, manage, and be environmentally effective by operating on a schedule to minimize waste and, if possible, achieve zero-carbon emissions by running on renewable energy.
In conclusion, direct legislation to the value of depletable fuel sources, while understandable, can have detrimental consequences on the economy. Instead, a network of communal transportation available for the people will be more reasonable.
- In some countries shopping online is replacing shopping at stores Discuss both the pros and cons of this trend 93
- This is an IELTS Writing Task 2 sample answer essay from the real exam on the topic of kiwi fruit exports from New Zealand to various other countries 85
- The table below gives information about the values NZ of exports of kiwi fruit from New Zealand to five countries between 2010 and 2012 78
- The table below gives information about the values NZ of exports of kiwi fruit from New Zealand to five countries between 2010 and 2012 89
- The table and charts below give information on the police budget for 2017 and 2018 in one area of Britain The table shows where the money came from and the charts show how it was distributed 93
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 110, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'suggested reducing'.
Suggestion: suggested reducing
...Therefore, a rise in its price is often suggested to reduce the growing number of conveyances on th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 264, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...me effect on the problem, in my opinion, the possible detriments and the existenc...
^^
Line 2, column 650, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'manufacturers'' or 'manufacturer's'?
Suggestion: manufacturers'; manufacturer's
...can have troubling consequences on many manufacturers production and logistical efforts, furt...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, moreover, regarding, so, therefore, thus, while, for instance, in conclusion, such as, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 7.30460921844 14% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 24.0651302605 46% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1766.0 1615.20841683 109% => OK
No of words: 312.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.66025641026 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.34757190701 2.80592935109 119% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 176.041082164 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.61858974359 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 574.2 506.74238477 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.1170455994 49.4020404114 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.846153846 106.682146367 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 20.7667163134 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.15384615385 7.06120827912 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0653058192434 0.244688304435 27% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0210301644793 0.084324248473 25% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0215843669668 0.0667982634062 32% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0392181889206 0.151304729494 26% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0168224502509 0.056905535591 30% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 13.0946893788 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 50.2224549098 60% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.3001002004 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.84 12.4159519038 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.1 8.58950901804 129% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 78.4519038076 158% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 11.2359550562 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.