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, improvement in public transport in regards to city expansion has sparked an ongoing controversy, which inevitably leads to a moot question "what steps can be taken to improve public transport in big cities?". Whereas it is a widely held view that government should build more roads to facilitate car ownership, I will discuss controversial aspects of that throughout this essay.
From the transportation standpoint, public transport is bound up inextricably with urban area, which indicates it leads to both air pollution and traffic reduction. As a well-known example, a longitudinal study conducted by eminent scientists in 2018 demonstrates the relationship between interstate travelling and private cars as well as an exponential increase in road safety. Their academic criticism was impressive. Consequently, my empirical evidence presented thus far supports the contention that the likelihood of modern city is correlated positively with not only vehicles networks but also private investment.
Within the realm of environmental perspective, without the slightest doubt, public transportation system attribute to urban development, in that it would come down to less traffic congestion, pedestrian area, and new highways. A salient example of such attribution is high speed unground train, which is a cause for concern since it was mistaken to take time saving for granted. Had there been a paradigm shift earlier, scholars might have had the opportunity to pinpoint high cost of public transport up keeping problems. Likewise, hardly had they confined their attention to car smocking, limited source, and even clean energy. Hence, it is reasonable to infer the pivotal role of new planning for improvement of public transport.
To conclude, as for myself, as the saying goes "all's well that ends well," after analyzing what elaborated above, I firmly believe that more consideration must be into account to face with this issue. However, with the benefit of hindsight, we conceive the more we research, the further we discover.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 43, Rule ID: IN_REGARD_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'regarding' or 'with regard to'.
Suggestion: regarding; with regard to
...cently, improvement in public transport in regards to city expansion has sparked an ongoing c...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...cts of that throughout this essay. From the transportation standpoint, publ...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...works but also private investment. Within the realm of environmental perspe...
^^^^^^^
Line 21, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...r improvement of public transport. To conclude, as for myself, as the sayin...
^^^^^^^
Line 25, column 78, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...ying goes 'alls well that ends well,' after analyzing what elaborated above,...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, hence, however, if, likewise, so, thus, well, whereas, as for, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.5418719212 104% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 20.9802955665 110% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 31.9359605911 138% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 5.75862068966 278% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1784.0 1207.87684729 148% => OK
No of words: 314.0 242.827586207 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.68152866242 5.00649968141 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 3.92707691288 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15375397655 2.71678728327 116% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 139.433497537 151% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.671974522293 0.580463131201 116% => OK
syllable_count: 531.9 379.143842365 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.57093596059 108% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.6157635468 130% => OK
Article: 3.0 1.56157635468 192% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.71428571429 233% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 3.65517241379 192% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 12.6551724138 103% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.5024630542 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.9718864342 50.4703680194 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.230769231 104.977214359 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1538461538 20.9669160288 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.53846153846 7.25397266985 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.33497536946 94% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 6.9802955665 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 2.75862068966 36% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 2.91625615764 34% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.246695587866 0.242375264174 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0715356929477 0.0925447433944 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0697976721606 0.071462118173 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134887292321 0.151781067708 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0899024116312 0.0609392437508 148% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 12.6369458128 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 53.1260098522 73% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 10.9458128079 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.96 11.5310837438 138% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.36 8.32886699507 124% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 55.0591133005 200% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 9.94827586207 156% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.3980295567 112% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.5123152709 152% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 77.7777777778 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 70.0 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.