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
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, 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 : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 41.998997996 133% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1773.0 1615.20841683 110% => OK
No of words: 362.0 315.596192385 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89779005525 5.12529762239 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36191444098 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86983072505 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 176.041082164 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.524861878453 0.561755894193 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 567.0 506.74238477 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 16.0721442886 56% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 40.0 20.2975951904 197% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 164.576973623 49.4020404114 333% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 197.0 106.682146367 185% => OK
Words per sentence: 40.2222222222 20.7667163134 194% => OK
Discourse Markers: 16.0 7.06120827912 227% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.168991628698 0.244688304435 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.073723524155 0.084324248473 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0482886113948 0.0667982634062 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115853388565 0.151304729494 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0246846181797 0.056905535591 43% => 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: 21.8 13.0946893788 166% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.88 50.2224549098 61% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.9 11.3001002004 167% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.03 12.4159519038 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.11 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 78.4519038076 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 9.78957915832 174% => OK
gunning_fog: 18.0 10.1190380762 178% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.