Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Some people believe that a government should invest more in the rail system and build more railroads rather than diverting funds to improving highways and road transportation systems. To a certain point, I would agree with the statement, but I also believe that the decision of building railways or roads should be made based on the natural conditions of the area and the preference of citizens.
On the one hand, it is understandable if some people opine that a government should expand more railroads rather than roads and streets. Firstly, it is obvious that when a country has extensive rail networks, it will positively affect the logistic cost. The selling price of many goods would be cheaper since a single locomotive could carry tonnes of crops, goods or liquor. Secondly, by building integrated subway stations in city areas, traffic congestion could be avoided. For example, as Singapore has a very good train network, called MRT, most of the people rarely drive on their vehicles. As a result, Singapore is free from traffic congestion and air pollution.
On the other hand, it is also important for a government to do some feasibility studies about the geological conditions of an area before planning to improve railroads. It is a fact that some areas might not be suitable for railways, as those areas might have swamps or rocky mountains, for example. If the government finalise building railway networks, the investment cost might be unreasonably high. For instance, Borneo in Indonesia is one of the largest islands in the world, but most of the areas are swamps. So it is not suitable for railroads but good for an integrated water and road transportation system. Finally, the preference of citizens should also be considered before investing in construction on railroads or highways.
In conclusion, a government should invest in building railroads where applicable, but should also analyse thoroughly before spending money solely on railways. The authority needs to ensure that their areas are suitable for rail networks and people prefer that transportation system.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, for example, for instance, in conclusion, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 7.85571142285 178% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 10.4138276553 144% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 41.998997996 86% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 8.3376753507 204% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1759.0 1615.20841683 109% => OK
No of words: 338.0 315.596192385 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20414201183 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28774723029 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86758437708 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 176.041082164 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.51775147929 0.561755894193 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 533.7 506.74238477 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.9516545068 49.4020404114 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.9375 106.682146367 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.125 20.7667163134 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.375 7.06120827912 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.174329238918 0.244688304435 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0563039976425 0.084324248473 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.071701867933 0.0667982634062 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122927255481 0.151304729494 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0687029893988 0.056905535591 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.0946893788 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 50.2224549098 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.4159519038 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.58950901804 100% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 78.4519038076 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 9.78957915832 133% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => 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.