City are now expanding, the government should make better network for public transport or should build more roads to facilitate car ownership? Agree or disagree?
Nowadays, there is an ongoing debate on whether the government should facilitate the public transport for public use or personal vehicle ownership. I agree with the statement that government should make some better plans for creating solid network for public transport, while people on the other hand stands a perspective that building good roads to support car ownership should be focused by management authorities. This essay will further elaborate on both the sides and thus will lead to a logical conclusion.
At the outset, there are myriad of reasons why the government should make some better plans for creating well managed networks for public transport, but the most preponderant on stems from the fact that it will help to decrease the level of carbon and will facilitate the majority of the travelers. For example, according to a startling new research, seventy percent of the Australian population is usually travelling by the trains and buses, so by improving the public transport services government can help the majority of the people to make their journey experience better.
On the otherhand, people believe that making the roads far more perfect for car travelers can help the government to boost the counties's economic level. This is because government can apply toll charges on road that they developed. Moreover, it will not only benefit the people who own cars, but also support the people who have other vehicles like as, truck, bikes and cycles. Therefore, government should not overlook the benefits that can be generated by building more roads.
In the light of arguments outlined above, one can conclude the benefits of developing public transport medium are indeed too great.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 270, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ting solid network for public transport, while people on the other hand stands a ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, look, moreover, so, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.5418719212 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 6.10837438424 278% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 8.36945812808 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 5.94088669951 135% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 20.9802955665 62% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 31.9359605911 94% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.75862068966 208% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1571.0 1207.87684729 130% => OK
No of words: 300.0 242.827586207 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23666666667 5.00649968141 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 3.92707691288 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64434616998 2.71678728327 97% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 139.433497537 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.546666666667 0.580463131201 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 477.0 379.143842365 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.57093596059 102% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.71428571429 58% => OK
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: 25.0 20.5024630542 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 81.9373066571 50.4703680194 162% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.916666667 104.977214359 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 20.9669160288 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.58333333333 7.25397266985 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.12807881773 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 6.9802955665 100% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 2.75862068966 109% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 2.91625615764 69% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.581934873308 0.242375264174 240% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.23066473301 0.0925447433944 249% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.239477802736 0.071462118173 335% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.390693400428 0.151781067708 257% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.329451583876 0.0609392437508 541% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 12.6369458128 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 53.1260098522 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.54236453202 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 10.9458128079 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 11.5310837438 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.32886699507 107% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 55.0591133005 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.94827586207 111% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.3980295567 115% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.5123152709 86% => 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.