Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Every government works hard so that citizens can commute safely and quickly while businesses get a solid transportation system for trade facilities. Thus when the question arises whether a government should focus on improving its railways or roads, people have divided opinions. I personally agree that the government should spend more money on the railway system.
Fast of all, railways offer a safer commuting experience both for the citizens and traders. The numbers of road accidents and highway casualties in many countries, for example, are far higher than that of railway accidents. Thus investing in a safer mode of transportation is a much more prudent idea. Moreover, rails cause comparatively less environmental pollutions while road vehicles are the main reason for increasing pollution and around the world.
Second, rails can carry hundreds of people and several hundred tonnes of goods at a time while road transports not built for that. Some shuttle trains are many times faster than that those of private cars and public buses. Thus improved railways would save peoples’ valuable time every day. Thirdly, rail lines are usually away from the main cities and that is why some busy cities have no other alternatives than to improve their rail transportation system. Express trains can reduce the traffic congestion in metro areas, and more investment to improve the railway is the only possible solution in many cities where population density is high.
Finally, the population of the world is increasing rapidly, and that is why investing more money in a faster and reliable transportation system is more logical than investing in the older transportation system. Railways will be the future in the transportation sector, and investment in it is the better choice for any government.
In conclusion, I believe that a government, either in a developed or a developing country, should invest to build a safer, faster and more reliable transportation system, and the railway, for this reason, should get an obvious priority.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 150, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...sportation system for trade facilities. Thus when the question arises whether a gove...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, moreover, second, so, third, thirdly, thus, while, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 10.4138276553 144% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 41.998997996 62% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 8.3376753507 252% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1727.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 325.0 315.596192385 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31384615385 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24591054749 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89149579439 2.80592935109 103% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 176.041082164 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.556923076923 0.561755894193 99% => OK
syllable_count: 530.1 506.74238477 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.842054954 49.4020404114 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.133333333 106.682146367 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6666666667 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.73333333333 7.06120827912 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.161109246379 0.244688304435 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0653440856987 0.084324248473 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0770681568413 0.0667982634062 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0994609605775 0.151304729494 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0523545817344 0.056905535591 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.0946893788 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 50.2224549098 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.4159519038 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.86 8.58950901804 103% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 78.4519038076 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.