As The Number Of Cars Increases, More Money Has To Be Spent On Road System. Some People Think That The Government Should Pay For This. Others, However, Think That The Users Should Pay For The Cost.
Discuss Both Views And Give Your Opinion.
As the number of cars on the road increases, it is a common belief that more money has to be spent on road systems. This is because an increase in the number of cars leads to an increase in road maintenance and construction costs, as well as an increase in congestion and traffic-related accidents. While some people think that the government should pay for these costs, others believe that the users of the road system should pay for it. In this essay, I intend to discuss both views and give my opinion on this matter.
Those who believe that the government should pay for the cost of road maintenance and construction argue that the road system is a public good and therefore should be funded by the government. They argue that the government has a responsibility to invest public funds into infrastructure projects that benefit the wider population. Proponents of this viewpoint also cite the positive externalities that result from the use of road systems, such as increased trade and economic growth, as further justification for government funding.
On the other hand, those who advocate for users to pay for the costs of the road system argue that it is not fair for taxpayers who do not own cars to subsidize those who do. They argue that car owners are the primary beneficiaries of the road system and should therefore bear the costs associated with its maintenance and construction. Advocates of this position also point out that road usage charges, such as fuel taxes and tolls, can act as disincentives to unnecessary car usage and thus reduce congestion and environmental pollution.
In my opinion, while both viewpoints have merits, the fairest approach is for road users to pay for the cost of the road system. I believe that this approach aligns with the principle of user pays, which holds that those who benefit from a service should pay for it. Moreover, it would give road users a greater incentive to use their cars efficiently and reduce congestion, thus promoting environmental sustainability. However, it is essential to ensure that this approach does not lead to disproportionately high costs for low-income earners who are reliant on cars for their livelihood. Therefore, it is important to have a system in place that considers the needs of all road users.
In conclusion, as the number of cars on the road increases, there is no doubt that road maintenance and construction costs will also increase. The question of whether the government or users should pay for these costs is a contentious issue. While both viewpoints have merits, I believe that road users should bear the cost of the road system as it promotes environmental sustainability and aligns with the principle of user pays. However, it is equally important to ensure that this approach is equitable and takes into account the needs of all road users.
- as well as making money businesses also have social responsibilities to what extent do you agree or disagree 89
- The animal species are becoming extinct due to human activities on land and in sea What are the reasons and solutions 92
- Nowadays experience is more valued in the workplace than knowledge in many countries Do you think the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages 93
- Some people think students should study the science of food and how to prepare it Others think that school time should be used in learning important subjects Discuss both views and give your opinion 78
- only the government action can solve housing shortages in big cities To what extent do you agree or disagree 95
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 144, Rule ID: WHETHER[3]
Message: Wordiness: Shorten this phrase to the shortest possible suggestion.
Suggestion: Whether; The question whether
... construction costs will also increase. The question of whether the government or users should pay for ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, thus, well, while, as to, in conclusion, no doubt, such as, as well as, in my opinion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 7.30460921844 342% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 51.0 24.0651302605 212% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 41.998997996 124% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 8.3376753507 264% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2376.0 1615.20841683 147% => OK
No of words: 480.0 315.596192385 152% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.95 5.12529762239 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68069463864 4.20363070211 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92285058728 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 176.041082164 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.404166666667 0.561755894193 72% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 725.4 506.74238477 143% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 5.43587174349 239% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.10420841683 333% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 35.3320615113 49.4020404114 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.052631579 106.682146367 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2631578947 20.7667163134 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.78947368421 7.06120827912 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.67935871743 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.528081267084 0.244688304435 216% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.173659573445 0.084324248473 206% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.117385757533 0.0667982634062 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.330054057875 0.151304729494 218% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.121716091519 0.056905535591 214% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.0946893788 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 50.2224549098 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.4159519038 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.9 8.58950901804 92% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 78.4519038076 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.