Government should spend money on railways rather than roads.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement?
It is an ongoing debate about whether government should prefer improving road or railway transport. Many people have different opinions about this issue but I do not agree with the given statement.
It is irrefutable that advantages of railways have an edge over those of roadways and hence it is factual that money should be spent on them. To initiate with the pros, the predominant benefit of trains is that they are comparatively faster mode of transport. Where public buses or cars take days to reach, trains can reach in only few number of hours. Hence, it helps to save our time. Moreover, with faster conveyance, trade between nations becomes more efficient. Also, there are certain people who cannot afford expensive flight tickets and so, they prefer subways as it is a lot cheaper than planes.
Although railways provide a number of benefits yet, I believe that asphalt mode of transport, i.e. roads, too need to be funded. As is clear that with railways , comes extra maintenance cost of trains, cleanliness and expenses such as salaries of staff, food courts etc. While on the other side, roads need no such high costs to run. In addition to this, people can also get physcial health benefits if they chose to ride a bicycle or simply just walk to their workplaces who otherwise would depend on metros. Also, in extreme conditions of floods and storms, travelling through roads is much safer than trains.
In conclusion, I would like to say that although spending money on railways seem to be a better option in the short term, but government should instead focus on drastic conditions of roads as they, unlike trains, have no disadvantages.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 332, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun number seems to be countable; consider using: 'few numbers'.
Suggestion: few numbers
...days to reach, trains can reach in only few number of hours. Hence, it helps to save our t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 107, Rule ID: TOO_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'to need'?
Suggestion: to need
... asphalt mode of transport, i.e. roads, too need to be funded. As is clear that with rai...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 159, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...e funded. As is clear that with railways , comes extra maintenance cost of trains,...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, moreover, so, while, in addition, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1375.0 1615.20841683 85% => OK
No of words: 281.0 315.596192385 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.89323843416 5.12529762239 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09427095027 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54536082457 2.80592935109 91% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 176.041082164 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.644128113879 0.561755894193 115% => OK
syllable_count: 408.6 506.74238477 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.8770214578 49.4020404114 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.2142857143 106.682146367 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0714285714 20.7667163134 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.57142857143 7.06120827912 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.230508384566 0.244688304435 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0674607942652 0.084324248473 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0599362253792 0.0667982634062 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148597201459 0.151304729494 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.063934411199 0.056905535591 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.0946893788 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 50.2224549098 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.4159519038 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.58950901804 94% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 78.4519038076 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => 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.