In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport. Discuss both these views and give your opinion.
Several countries believe that allocating money to the construction of railroads for fast trains among cities is essential. However, others think spending money on existing public transportation is more important. This essay will discuss both views before reaching the conclusion that money should be invested into both new and old transport systems.
On the one hand, I am of the view that countries should allocate money to new railway lines for fast trains because of its advantages in saving time for citizens. To be specific, a fast train could commute from a city to others in much less time than a bus or any public transportation. For example, it would take around one and a half hours to travel from Hanoi to Haiphong by a fast train, while tourists have to spend more than two hours involving waiting time or time being stuck in traffic jams when choosing a bus. Moreover, spending money on this means of transportation could encourage citizens to change their commuting habits to protect the environment. Particularly, a large number of people hesitate to travel by public transport because of its low speed, inconvenience or cramped atmosphere, so they often commute by their private vehicles that release a great amount of CO2. An airy, high speed and convenient train may motivate people to use public transport and contribute to decrease the level of pollution. Clearly, investing money into railroads could bring many benefits, not only for residents but also for the environment.
On the other hand, I also believe that money should be spent on old public transportation. Firstly, a country could save a number of national budgets when conducting this decision. In more detail, the costs of improving the existing systems may be fewer compared to that of establishing the new one. For instance, money allocated to old systems just involves maintenance fees or labour fees, while a country could have to pay for materials expenses, labour expenses, design expenses and so on. Furthermore, this policy would help to reduce the disappearance of natural beauty in a country. In other words, when constructing new railroads, a large area is needed, which includes the cutting down of trees and flowers or grass plots. As a consequence, the environment could be adversely affected.
To sum up, both views have valid points, however, I strongly believe that each statement has several benefits. While investing money into new railway lines for fast trains would help residents save their time and change habits to protect the environment, spending money on the old transport systems could help a country save money and maintain their natural beauty. That is the reason why money should be allocated to both new and old systems.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 680, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
... protect the environment. Particularly, a large number of people hesitate to travel by public tra...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, so, while, for example, for instance, in other words, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 7.85571142285 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 15.0 10.4138276553 144% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 24.0651302605 96% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 41.998997996 138% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2302.0 1615.20841683 143% => OK
No of words: 450.0 315.596192385 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.11555555556 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6057793516 4.20363070211 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78179709212 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 223.0 176.041082164 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495555555556 0.561755894193 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 694.8 506.74238477 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 7.0 2.52805611222 277% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 16.0721442886 124% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.8949660372 49.4020404114 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.1 106.682146367 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 20.7667163134 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5 7.06120827912 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
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: 0.454995306975 0.244688304435 186% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.138289463295 0.084324248473 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0860011149687 0.0667982634062 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.313001312457 0.151304729494 207% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0821909587395 0.056905535591 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.0946893788 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 50.2224549098 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.3001002004 95% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.4159519038 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.58950901804 98% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 78.4519038076 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.