Many people believe that contributing to the buckshee public transport for all time is the optimum method to deal with traffic jam in urban. I partly agree with this notion for some reasons which will be outlined in my essay below.
On the one hand, we can not deny the benefits of traveling by public transport. When compared to private vehicles of the same area, a car can only carry 4 people but a bus can carry up to 8 people. Thus, if the government supports commuters by making public transport free, it will encourage a large number of people to quit using private vehicles and replace them with buses. Besides, traveling by buses not only reduces the number of personal vehicles traveling on the road but also helps to reduce emissions due to burning fuel. Hence, contributing to environmental protection can be considered as an effective way to reduce traffic congestion, especially in big cities.
On the other hand, if it is considered that this is the optimal measure to reduce traffic congestion, we should evaluate it specifically and in detail. Firstly, if the government provides funding for commuters to travel for free, public transport companies will reap nothing from the commuter. Therefore these enterprises lack reinvest in the means of transport leading to service quality tends to decrease. Secondly, in general, public transport such as buses are largely comparing to a personal vehicle, and the most obvious downside of this is not convenient for commuters when moving to crowded residential areas or very small roads. Thirdly, if people give up their vehicles to use public equipment, it will lead to manufacturers of personal vehicles at risk of bankruptcy due to the inability to consume products, and workers in this manufacturing sector are unemployed.
In conclusion, I think that providing a free public transport service is also a good idea to reduce traffic congestion. It would be most effective if the government simultaneously builds more routes and widen more roads to have enough space for both public and private vehicles.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 292, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...ublic transport free, it will encourage a large number of people to quit using private vehicles a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 294, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...es will reap nothing from the commuter. Therefore these enterprises lack reinvest in the ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, firstly, hence, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, i think, in conclusion, in general, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 41.998997996 121% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1729.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 341.0 315.596192385 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07038123167 5.12529762239 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29722995808 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84045413063 2.80592935109 101% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 176.041082164 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548387096774 0.561755894193 98% => OK
syllable_count: 546.3 506.74238477 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.8983054854 49.4020404114 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.5 106.682146367 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3571428571 20.7667163134 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.7142857143 7.06120827912 166% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.174065929044 0.244688304435 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0671210389351 0.084324248473 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0546893175582 0.0667982634062 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117163396014 0.151304729494 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0266885911452 0.056905535591 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: 14.6 13.0946893788 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 50.2224549098 94% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.4159519038 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.76 8.58950901804 102% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 78.4519038076 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.