do you agree or disagree with the following statement?in twenty years there will be fewer cars in use than there are today. use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
In many years from the industrial revolution until today, humans use cars to conservating their time and increasing productivity at their productions. The cars have abundant roles in people's transport. In my opinion, the industry of cars manufacturing because having ample adherent, enhance productions. I believe that in the twenty years the number of cars will be raising than today. I provide two reasons for my belief in following the above statement and then express them with examples.
First of all, Using alternative fuels instead of oil derivatives such as gasoline. Many years the universal concentration is the weather’s temperature. Regardless of the earth's heat, immeasurable cars at the world trigger pollutant emissions because they use oil combustion. As a result, Trying of world social causes altered renewable energies such as solar, Electricity instead of non-renewable fuels. My experience in my country is a compelling example of this, When the quantity of air pollution increased, The government policy created constraint for the corporation to import hybrid cars. Even though this requirement not sufficient because producers resisted this policy for maximizing themselves a profit.
Second, population growth causes to developing infrastructure of transport to control traffic. Utility is the most important terms in the individual life. Therefore this concept illustrates the people in the world looking for convenience. Moreover, the Presence culture of using public apparatuses like buses and subway helps to decrease the traffic. Nevertheless, the growing demand for a car for individual consumption coincides with the expansion of equipment of public transport. For example at big cities such as Tokyo and Tehran with the explosion of population in the day causes public transport can not a response to the shuttle of people in town. However, enhancing the price of fuel brings that people encourage utilization the public services and goods.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that substitution the cars with renewable energy instead of spent cars with concern about geothermal is an efficient policy to the growth of cars in the future. Considering the preference of people near raising their population help to the policymakers to evaluate how facing with their demand for cars.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-06-23 | YasamanEsml | 88 | view |
| 2023-04-13 | sonyeoso | 76 | view |
| 2023-01-11 | theprasad | 73 | view |
| 2023-01-04 | Mangiring Pandapotan | 83 | view |
| 2022-11-05 | daddy | 70 | view |
- do you agree or disagree with the following statement? it is more important to keep your old friends than it is to make new friends. 60
- do you agree or disagree with the following statement in twenty years there will be fewer cars in use than there are today use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 155, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...important terms in the individual life. Therefore this concept illustrates the people in ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, look, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, then, therefore, as to, for example, in conclusion, such as, as a result, first of all, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 15.1003584229 33% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 9.8082437276 20% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 13.8261648746 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 11.0286738351 36% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 43.0788530466 49% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 52.1666666667 107% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 8.0752688172 248% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1964.0 1977.66487455 99% => OK
No of words: 355.0 407.700716846 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.5323943662 4.8611393121 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34067318298 4.48103885553 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05107484776 2.67179642975 114% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 212.727598566 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.569014084507 0.524837075471 108% => OK
syllable_count: 607.5 618.680645161 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.1344086022 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.3223536935 48.9658058833 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.2 100.406767564 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.75 20.6045352989 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.15 5.45110844103 150% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 11.8709677419 93% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 3.85842293907 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.88709677419 184% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.196112629432 0.236089414692 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0569087104417 0.076458572812 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0686306001274 0.0737576698707 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122304842715 0.150856017488 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0817090519288 0.0645574589148 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 11.7677419355 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 58.1214874552 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.5 10.9000537634 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.91 8.01818996416 124% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 86.8835125448 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.002688172 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.0537634409 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.