Countries spend money on trains rather than new roads. Do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, nations are spending money to improve their infrastructure. Even though, by improving roads government can enhance the beauty of cities and avoid congestion on roads, trains are faster and Eco-friendly. In my opinion, countries should spend money on trains as compared to roads.
To begin with, trains are faster than road vehicles. This is because there is no traffic jams on railway tracks. Owing to this, they cover miles in just few minutes. Therefore, people can save their time by travelling on trains. For instance, in Japan, individual prefer to travel by trains because trains takes less time to cover large distance. They travel 200 km per day for work from small towns to big cities. If they cover such distance daily by cars then it is not possible of them to travel a lot for work. Consequently, government of Japan spend a huge amount of money on trains as compared to roads.
Secondly, the most beneficial factor of improving or investing on trains is that they are environment friendly because they do not emit carbon dioxide another toxic gases like as cars. Moreover, today, most of the trains run by electricity. Therefore, they produce zero pollution. To exemplify this, according to a survey done by World Health Organisation, the developed countries spend 80 % money on metro trains than roads. As a result, World Health Organisation declared them clean countries to live as well as this organisation advice other countries to run metro trains in congestion area to lessen the pollution on roads. Hence, it has been proved that trains are help to reduce the global warning.
In conclusion, although, roads are important part of cities’ infrastructure yet the benefits of trains are outweigh than cars. In my prospective, trains are more convenient way to travel large distances if we want to save our time as well as environment.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-02-09 | mehjabin | 78 | view |
| 2024-01-16 | mehjabin | 61 | view |
| 2024-01-09 | Amna Zeeshan | 61 | view |
| 2024-01-09 | Amna Zeeshan | 78 | view |
| 2023-12-22 | Rehana Diwan | 55 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 113, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'outweighed'.
Suggestion: outweighed
...tructure yet the benefits of trains are outweigh than cars. In my prospective, trains ar...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, hence, if, moreover, second, secondly, then, therefore, well, for instance, in conclusion, as a result, as well as, in my opinion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 7.85571142285 38% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 7.30460921844 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1574.0 1615.20841683 97% => OK
No of words: 310.0 315.596192385 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07741935484 5.12529762239 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80100300034 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 176.041082164 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.567741935484 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 470.7 506.74238477 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.6207417472 49.4020404114 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.8421052632 106.682146367 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.3157894737 20.7667163134 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.31578947368 7.06120827912 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 3.4128256513 264% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.274388637544 0.244688304435 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0870420058013 0.084324248473 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.092285005982 0.0667982634062 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.172784510463 0.151304729494 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0729270331923 0.056905535591 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 13.0946893788 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 50.2224549098 127% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.3001002004 74% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.4159519038 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.58950901804 97% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 78.4519038076 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 9.78957915832 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.