In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
In the contemporary world, transportation has been one of the most impressing concerns, leading to the divergence of the opinion on national spending on each kind of them. A number of people believe that investing a large amount of money on enhancing the quality of current means of public transport is completely essential, I am inclined to the view that it is also important to fund on new railway lines between cities.
On the one hand, there appears necessary to improve existing public transport due to following compatible reasons. Firstly, in comparison with railway systems between towns, the current means of public transport such as bus, subways are more affordable, allowing people from different backgrounds using. For example, it is a bus that carries several passengers to every corner of a city, which is impossible for very fast trains. Secondly, improving the standard for each route and increasing numbers of public transport, especially in many big cities such as London or New York, may likely to remain community mode of citizens as well as tourists. As a result, passengers may become increasingly satisfaction and this city would attract more and more visitors coming to experience services there.
On the other hand, in terms of commuting between cities, investing a large amount of money on the railway system brings further benefits. First of all, the reduction of traffic jams and accidents is what I would like to put my priority in. Thanks to several modern fast – moving trains, a huge number of passengers, accompanied by heavy luggage and commodities could be carried conveniently. In addition, the availability of railway lines results in decreasing numbers of private cars that mainly cause air pollution. As the high amount of toxic gases released from private cars having a negative influence on the environment, the introduction of new eco-friendly engines such as sky-trains or fast subways will dramatically reduce the amount of carbon emission to the atmosphere and bring an open fresh air in the long term. Last but not least, the fast speed of this means of transport makes a contribution to save commuter’s traveling time and transferring effectively among destinations.
In conclusion, for the aforementioned discussion, building up the railways system between cities may have advantages in several aspects of life and passenger’s experience. However, the government should allocate resources appropriately in both public transport and fast trains to meet citizen’s daily commuting requirement.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 67, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'railways'' or 'railway's'?
Suggestion: railways'; railway's
...rementioned discussion, building up the railways system between cities may have advantag...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, well, as to, for example, in addition, in conclusion, kind of, such as, as a result, as well as, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 7.0 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 1.00243902439 798% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 12.0 6.8 176% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 5.60731707317 214% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 33.7804878049 198% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 3.97073170732 353% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2165.0 965.302439024 224% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 402.0 196.424390244 205% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.3855721393 4.92477711251 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47771567384 3.73543355544 120% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10814400319 2.65546596893 117% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 106.607317073 224% => Less unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.594527363184 0.547539520022 109% => OK
syllable_count: 664.2 283.868780488 234% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.45097560976 117% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.33902439024 184% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 3.36585365854 208% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 8.94146341463 168% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.4926829268 116% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.7069887839 43.030603864 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.333333333 112.824112599 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.8 22.9334400587 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.0 5.23603664747 248% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 3.70975609756 270% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.09268292683 98% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.318436066383 0.215688989381 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0929211637599 0.103423049105 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.070848750967 0.0843802449381 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.180241675451 0.15604864568 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0386081234885 0.0819641961636 47% => 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: 17.4 13.2329268293 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 61.2550243902 60% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.51609756098 172% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 10.3012195122 142% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.28 11.4140731707 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.36 8.06136585366 116% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 40.7170731707 278% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.4329268293 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.9970731707 113% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.0658536585 136% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.