Should governments spend more money on improving roads and highways, or should governments spend more money on improving transportation (buses, trains, subways)? Why?
People who go to distant area, and commute to their school or job have many ways to reach their destination, two of which are driving an automobile which is at their disposal, and employing public service of transporting. Moreover, governments can influence their choice by expending funding for one of these things. Personally, I believe that the authorities need to spend more budget for public transportation. I have three rationales for holding this opinion, and I will develop these ideas in the subsequent paragraphs.
Firstly, if the regime improves the condition of public transportation system, citizens will be willing to utilize it in order to satisfy their need, which may occasion trouble of pollution and congestion of highways. On the other hand, if the authorities enhance the situation of roads by keeping buses and metros in impoverished condition, individuals will prefer to drive their own vehicle. The more private cars are driven, the more air pollution will be in the particular area. Therefore, health condition of people will suffer from this detrimental substance in atmosphere. Needless to say, governments should take care of the health situation of citizens. More importantly, as I mentioned above, if the enormous number of local people utilize their private automobile, the roads and highways will be congested. By contrast, local transporting system will occasion less extent of problems for traffic jam. As a result of this, people will probably take advantage of their finite amount of time efficiently without consuming time on packed roads.
Finally, local transporting system is accessible for every citizens of the area, which signifies that people will benefit from the enhancement of public transportation equally. There are many individuals who are incapable of affording private vehicle because of their age or financial security. If statesmen increase the quality of only roads, people who are too indigent or young to drive cars will be forced to employ the public transporting method of impoverished quality. For instance, current situation of buses which is the only choice for citizens of my native country is poor and remote. However, I am still utilizing it in order to commute to my university because I am incapable of purchasing private car. If the president of Mongolia, my native nation, have spent fiscal for public transportation, many individuals who are unavailable to buy their own car would have taken advantage on the enhancement.
In summation, I am of the opinion of that governments have to expend revenue of taxation for local transporting situation. This is because less individuals will utilize their private automobile by producing pollution and posing traffic jam, and this decision is beneficial for nearly all citizens.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 526, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ese ideas in the subsequent paragraphs. Firstly, if the regime improves the cond...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1054, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...without consuming time on packed roads. Finally, local transporting system is ac...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 915, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ave taken advantage on the enhancement. In summation, I am of the opinion of tha...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 140, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun individuals is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...transporting situation. This is because less individuals will utilize their private ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, so, still, therefore, for instance, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 15.1003584229 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 9.8082437276 173% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 13.8261648746 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 43.0788530466 77% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 52.1666666667 117% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 8.0752688172 297% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2359.0 1977.66487455 119% => OK
No of words: 441.0 407.700716846 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34920634921 4.8611393121 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58257569496 4.48103885553 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99897058831 2.67179642975 112% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 212.727598566 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49433106576 0.524837075471 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 753.3 618.680645161 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.51792114695 199% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.67539353 48.9658058833 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.95 100.406767564 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.05 20.6045352989 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.95 5.45110844103 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 11.8709677419 76% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.113579735955 0.236089414692 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0416640679069 0.076458572812 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0460760254254 0.0737576698707 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0684716364822 0.150856017488 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0396040526022 0.0645574589148 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 11.7677419355 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 58.1214874552 70% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.1575268817 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 10.9000537634 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.13 8.01818996416 114% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 86.8835125448 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.002688172 115% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.247311828 137% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.