Cities are now expanding; the government should make better network for public transport or should build more roads to facilitate car ownership? Agree or Disagree?
Recently, the phenomenon of the consequences of urban expansion and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of developing roads for car-owners is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that improvement in public transport can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, a modern and efficient public transport can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that merits of less air pollution, as well as less traffic congestion, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered the upsides of using public transport. Thus, beneficial ramifications of which seems obvious.
Within the realm of science, private cars might increase the consequences of a heavy traffic jam. Moreover, fundamental aspects of car ownership could relate to this reality that the demerits of high expenses pertain to building more roads. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of increasing private cars is correlated negatively with government expenditure. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of the collaboration between government and city dwellers.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of extending network for public transport far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of saving government’s financial resources prove the significance of efficient public transport, but also pinpoint car ownership implications.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...l analyze that throughout this essay. From a social standpoint, a modern and e...
^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...between government and city dwellers. To conclude, while there are several com...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.5418719212 85% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 6.10837438424 82% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 8.36945812808 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 5.94088669951 185% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 20.9802955665 86% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 31.9359605911 110% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.75862068966 191% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1559.0 1207.87684729 129% => OK
No of words: 273.0 242.827586207 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.71062271062 5.00649968141 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 3.92707691288 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.29205207091 2.71678728327 121% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 139.433497537 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.659340659341 0.580463131201 114% => OK
syllable_count: 485.1 379.143842365 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 2.0 1.56157635468 128% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.5024630542 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.6266289176 50.4703680194 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.916666667 104.977214359 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.75 20.9669160288 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.41666666667 7.25397266985 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.33497536946 37% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 6.9802955665 100% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 2.91625615764 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.213187277674 0.242375264174 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.064026480613 0.0925447433944 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0428464203338 0.071462118173 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115035317181 0.151781067708 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0469865696629 0.0609392437508 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 12.6369458128 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 53.1260098522 61% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 10.9458128079 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.13 11.5310837438 140% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.74 8.32886699507 129% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 55.0591133005 189% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.94827586207 146% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.3980295567 104% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.5123152709 105% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 76.5 Out of 90
---------------------
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.