The importance of governments should look forward to creating better networks of public transportation available for everyone rather than building more roads for vehicle owing population, which was always debatable, has now become more controversial. The substantial influence of using public transportations has sparked controversy over the potential impact of this trend on the whole society in recent years. It can be agreed that creating better networks of public transportation plays a vital role, though it has drawbacks. This easy will elaborate on how public transportation can save energy and how roads give people more freedom, and thus lead to a logical conclusion.
At the outset, there are numerous reasons why the governments should creating better networks of public transportation rather than building more roads, but the most conspicuous one stems from the fact that better public transportation networks can save more energy, which directly influences the environment of the world. As an illustration, research has invariably revealed that petrol usage rate in China has dramatically increased four times compared with 2018 after better networks of public transportation line have been operated in Beijing. Therefore, better networks of public transportation should be created by governments.
Nevertheless, some people adopt an opposing view and tend to believe that the government should be building more roads for vehicle owning population as there are innumerable reasons for that but the most salient one is that more roads give people more freedom on their schedule. For instance, 78 % of local people think that the diversity of roads in France gives them the freedom to choose. Thus, the government should be building more roads for their country.
In conclusion, from what has been discussed above, it can be concluded that the impact of governments creating better networks of public transportation is prominent, although building roads should not be overlooked.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, look, nevertheless, so, therefore, thus, for instance, in conclusion, on the whole
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.5418719212 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 6.10837438424 180% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 20.9802955665 76% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 31.9359605911 103% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 5.75862068966 295% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1695.0 1207.87684729 140% => OK
No of words: 304.0 242.827586207 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.57565789474 5.00649968141 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17559525986 3.92707691288 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05477364656 2.71678728327 112% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 139.433497537 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.519736842105 0.580463131201 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 499.5 379.143842365 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.57093596059 102% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.6157635468 65% => OK
Article: 3.0 1.56157635468 192% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.71428571429 175% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 3.65517241379 82% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 12.6551724138 87% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 20.5024630542 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 79.244260944 50.4703680194 157% => OK
Chars per sentence: 154.090909091 104.977214359 147% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6363636364 20.9669160288 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.90909090909 7.25397266985 109% => 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 : 0.0 2.75862068966 0% => 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: 0.492296267112 0.242375264174 203% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.19966367881 0.0925447433944 216% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.116300811493 0.071462118173 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.294789851799 0.151781067708 194% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0711243418587 0.0609392437508 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.7 12.6369458128 148% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 53.1260098522 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 10.9458128079 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.38 11.5310837438 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.32886699507 105% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 55.0591133005 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.94827586207 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.3980295567 123% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.5123152709 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 62.7777777778 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 56.5 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.