Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
There have been heated controversies over the provision of governmental resources on infrastructure. A majority of citizens argue that public funding should be allocated to the development of railway and train systems rather than to general streets. As far as I am concerned, after taking all aspects into consideration, I personally reject the suggestion, given some rebuttals that are going to be discussed in the essay.
On the one hand, it is indisputable that there is a number of possible benefits in terms of time and convenience when having a modern railway system. However, simultaneously, there are several major difficulties and challenges when investing in train systems. First and foremost, long-distance railway lines cost governments a fortune to implement, given the materials and human resources required to complete such demanding constructions. Moreover, maintenance fees for those underground metro and railway systems are exorbitantly expensive, which makes it a daunting task for the authorities to balance their budget for other strategic intentions. Therefore, railways should not deserve the national priority for investment.
On the other hand, as an alternative direction, governments can steer their focus onto public streets and highways which offer them fewer financial requirements. To state that, the essential expenses for general expressways are much more reasonable compared to a bunch of money needed to construct train systems. In addition, since a majority of people use their private vehicles for daily commuting purposes, renovating bridges and avenues would probably meet the demands of many citizens and hence increase the governments’ reputations. Lastly, if public roads are upgraded, the perennial issue of traffic congestion will be completely tackled, which certainly enhances individuals’ satisfaction and driving experience.
To sum up, given the challenges in terms of prices offered by the development of railway systems, I believe roads and public streets are worth the investment from the officials.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 473, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this underground' or 'those undergrounds'?
Suggestion: this underground; those undergrounds
...uctions. Moreover, maintenance fees for those underground metro and railway systems are exorbitan...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, if, lastly, moreover, so, therefore, in addition, to sum up, 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: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1760.0 1615.20841683 109% => OK
No of words: 306.0 315.596192385 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.75163398693 5.12529762239 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21286873749 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 176.041082164 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.640522875817 0.561755894193 114% => OK
syllable_count: 540.9 506.74238477 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => 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: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.9183051006 49.4020404114 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.384615385 106.682146367 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5384615385 20.7667163134 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.15384615385 7.06120827912 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
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: 0.117587242711 0.244688304435 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0404515542515 0.084324248473 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0387484701753 0.0667982634062 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0685859191547 0.151304729494 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0107771744979 0.056905535591 19% => 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: 17.4 13.0946893788 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 50.2224549098 62% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.37 12.4159519038 132% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.25 8.58950901804 119% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 78.4519038076 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.