Should government build more roads to allow more vehicle owner or improve the network of public transport?
Recently, the phenomenon of building more roads and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of reducing private vehicles is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe improving public transit can be a plus, and I will elaborate that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, the role of governments in constructing more roads can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that the merits of reducing traffic congestion, as well as depleting car accidents, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered the relationship between the number of public transport passengers and car drivers. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both building more roads and easing the vehicular traffic apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of science, upgrading the public transport network might increase the consequences of favoring car owners. Moreover, the fundamental aspects of improving traffic infrastructures could relate to this reality that the demerits of deficient public buses pertain to air pollution. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a highly prestigious university has asserted that the downside of using old public buses is correlated negatively with greenhouse gas emissions and dysfunctional public transit. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of improving public networks.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I firmly believe the benefits of improving public transport far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of road accidents prove the significance of building safer roads but also pinpoint environmental implications.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-17 | lovedeepkaur2000 | 77 | view |
| 2019-12-17 | Shruti gupta radhika | 85 | view |
| 2019-11-19 | manpreet9999 | 77 | view |
| 2019-09-09 | vahora juber | 77 | view |
| 2019-09-06 | prabhdyal | 11 | view |
- In many countries plastic bags are the main source of rubbish causing pollution in oceans and on land; therefore they should be banned. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? 67
- Some people think that the government is wasting money on the arts and that this money could be better spent elsewhereTo what extend do you agree with this view ? 56
- variety of qualified workers from the year 1995 to 2020 61
- can change human behaviour. Do you agree or not? 85
- Dangerous activities like extreme skiing, bungee jumping, etc. and whether you support them or not. 55
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, 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 : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 8.36945812808 84% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 5.94088669951 135% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 20.9802955665 76% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 31.9359605911 110% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.75862068966 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1655.0 1207.87684729 137% => OK
No of words: 288.0 242.827586207 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.74652777778 5.00649968141 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 3.92707691288 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21252244252 2.71678728327 118% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 139.433497537 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.628472222222 0.580463131201 108% => OK
syllable_count: 513.0 379.143842365 135% => 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: 3.0 1.56157635468 192% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.5024630542 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.7912072224 50.4703680194 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.916666667 104.977214359 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 20.9669160288 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41666666667 7.25397266985 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 6.9802955665 143% => 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: 0.313978882229 0.242375264174 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0992582541236 0.0925447433944 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0438969364 0.071462118173 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.166107277683 0.151781067708 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0129399174173 0.0609392437508 21% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 12.6369458128 140% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 53.1260098522 57% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 10.9458128079 137% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.37 11.5310837438 142% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.91 8.32886699507 131% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 55.0591133005 202% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.94827586207 141% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.3980295567 112% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.5123152709 114% => 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.