some people think that increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems while others think that there are better solutions. discuss both views and give your own opinion.
these days, a school of thought holds that rising the petroleum cost is the most optimal way to alleviate the increase in traffic and pollution issues while others claim that the government can introduce some practical methods to solve these problems. Both points of view are justifiable, but personally, I would gravitate toward the former.
It is understandable why people believe that some measures can be enacted by the state to solve such problems. Chief of these is that the authorities can get higher taxes on cars and motorbikes when they enter certain roads. In fact, if some citizens often move on these roads, they must pay higher taxes so public transport can be a viable choice that they can save a great deal of money and just spend a small fee; resulting, the problems with traffic and a polluted environment to be improved. The second solution is that the government can create a number of apps to accumulate points when the residents travel by mass transport. this means that the locals can get 1 point each time they go and a person accumulates 100 points, which receives 1 million, leading to encouraging people to use public transport.
However, I argue that raising the petrol cost is the most feasible way to diminish such issues because of a whole host of reasons. One of the major reasons is that this way can directly affect people's demands. this is because when the cost of natural fuels is dramatically increasing, people cannot be the ability to purchase petrol so people have to use other alternatives such as public transportation. As a result, the number of cars and motorbikes is decreased, traffic jams and air and noise pollution can be reduced. Another reason is that citizens and companies can use expensive fuel frugally more saving. In fact, residents or industries often tend to squander a lot of natural fuels in the work which just needs small petrol; leading to a number of smoke waste in the air; resulting, this would lessen CO2 omission in the air. In conclusion, I strongly believe that the increase in petrol cost is the most proper way to solve the problems with traffic and pollution.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-06-25 | Quynhduong123 | 56 | view |
| 2023-06-25 | Quynhduong123 | 73 | view |
- some people think that increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems while others think that there are better solutions discuss both views and give your own opinion 56
- some people think that increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems while others think that there are better sollutions discuss both views and give your own opinion 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: These
these days, a school of thought holds that ri...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 635, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...the residents travel by mass transport. this means that the locals can get 1 point e...
^^^^
Line 11, column 211, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...ay can directly affect peoples demands. this is because when the cost of natural fue...
^^^^
Line 11, column 748, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[5]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun smoke seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much smoke', 'a good deal of smoke'.
Suggestion: much smoke; a good deal of smoke
...ich just needs small petrol; leading to a number of smoke waste in the air; resulting, this would...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, second, so, while, in conclusion, in fact, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 13.1623246493 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 7.85571142285 178% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 7.30460921844 219% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 27.0 24.0651302605 112% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1791.0 1615.20841683 111% => OK
No of words: 367.0 315.596192385 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88010899183 5.12529762239 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37689890912 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64762939639 2.80592935109 94% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 176.041082164 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.512261580381 0.561755894193 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 540.9 506.74238477 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 20.2975951904 128% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 59.7631379118 49.4020404114 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.928571429 106.682146367 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.2142857143 20.7667163134 126% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.78571428571 7.06120827912 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.38176352705 68% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.01903807615 80% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.174385736611 0.244688304435 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0643854563783 0.084324248473 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0534895401296 0.0667982634062 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132721266507 0.151304729494 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0464659677783 0.056905535591 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.0946893788 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 50.2224549098 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.32 12.4159519038 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.58950901804 95% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 78.4519038076 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.1190380762 123% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.