Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Governments often confront a dilemma: how to utilize limited financial support to construct different infrastructures, especially for transportation. Referring to the current situation, some people suggest that administration departments are suppose to spend money on public transporting trails like rails rather than roads. From my point of view, it is true that devoting finance to the construction of railways would be advantageous on a large scale, but building roads is somewhat necessary on certain occasions, and let me illustrate my perspective with examples and explanations as follows.
To begin with, the construction of roads is inevitable in some areas, remote areas in particular. What I’m trying to say is that these remote areas could be hilly, and thereby it is extremely difficult to build railways, which would also cost governments more economy due to geographical barriers. As a result, the only choice is to construct roads, and for instance, the major transport method in mountainous districts of China is still road. Briefly, governments sometime could only choose road as the principal transportation according to geographical conditions.
Nevertheless, the better investment for the governments is building rails if the condition is suitable for it. Firstly, it will provide more convenience to people’s life, especially those working in large cities. To be specific, urban residents suffer from the heavy traffic jams when commuting to working places and prefer to use public transportation like railways. Additionally, taking trains is much more faster than driving by themselves. For example, a survey suggests that over 70% of dwellers in Chengdu said they tend to work by train. In short, it would be more convenient for citizens to travel to work through accelerating the construction of railways.
For another angle, railways, as public transportation, are much more environment-friendly compared to cars. As we all know that more car use will exacerbate the emission of tail gas, which includes not only toxic contaminants but also carbon dioxide, leading to global warming. However, some railways exploiting modern technology are less likely to emit these detrimental air. To sum up, there would be more merits in the aspect of environment when it comes to the construction of railways.
In conclusion, governments should spend more finance building railways and relevant public transporting modes, although sometimes, roads would be more cost-efficient. It depends on many ingredients like people’s basic need, geographical conditions and etc. Last but not least, as an old saying in China, everything is double-edges, and we need to consider more before making any statements.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 243, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'supposed'.
Suggestion: supposed
...est that administration departments are suppose to spend money on public transporting t...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 410, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'faster' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: faster
...ys. Additionally, taking trains is much more faster than driving by themselves. For example...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 254, Rule ID: AND_ETC[1]
Message: Use simply 'etc.'.
Suggestion: etc.
...s;s basic need, geographical conditions and etc. Last but not least, as an old saying in...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, briefly, but, first, firstly, however, if, nevertheless, so, still, well, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in particular, in short, as a result, it is true, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 13.1623246493 152% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 24.0651302605 96% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 41.998997996 140% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 8.3376753507 216% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2325.0 1615.20841683 144% => OK
No of words: 416.0 315.596192385 132% => OK
Chars per words: 5.58894230769 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51620172871 4.20363070211 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30243933148 2.80592935109 118% => OK
Unique words: 245.0 176.041082164 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.588942307692 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 693.0 506.74238477 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 0.809619238477 618% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 16.0721442886 124% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.5879748363 49.4020404114 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.25 106.682146367 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8 20.7667163134 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.8 7.06120827912 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 3.4128256513 264% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.108618641647 0.244688304435 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0317574905355 0.084324248473 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0415141807366 0.0667982634062 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0647571871357 0.151304729494 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0449437543254 0.056905535591 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.0946893788 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 50.2224549098 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.14 12.4159519038 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.49 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 78.4519038076 163% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.78957915832 148% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => 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.