Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads.
Many people believe that governments should prioritize the money used on railways than roads. In my point of views, investing in both of them can bring different benefits to society.
On the one hand, spending money on railways will improve the quality of long-distance travel. Because trains serve people who need to reach a far destination, so enhance the facilities of railways will attract more customers. Besides, trains can contain a great number of people, which will reduce CO2 emissions that cars cause. Therefore, spending money on railways will both gain economic and environmental benefits.
On the other hand, roads have a lot of people engage in every day. Thus, governments should invest more money in the street. Widening the space, improving the quality of streets will gain a great number of advantages. The first benefit is to reduce the occurrences of traffic congestion because one of the main reasons for it is the narrow street. Secondly, increasing the number of streets will also reduce the traffic stuck. Therefore having money from the governments will help us to fix those problems
In conclusion, investing money in railways and roads both gain a lot of benefits. However, the road's merits outweigh the other because more people participated in its. In the future, I believe there will be more cars and motorbikes on the streets, so to reduce traffic problems such as getting stuck on peek time, narrow street and more trees should be planted to supply shade for residents. Money investment in railways is recommended, but roads should be more prioritized.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 54, Rule ID: ANINFOR_EVERY_DAY[1]
Message: Did you mean 'in everyday'?
Suggestion: in everyday
...hand, roads have a lot of people engage in every day. Thus, governments should invest more m...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 429, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...ets will also reduce the traffic stuck. Therefore having money from the governments will ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 7.85571142285 191% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 9.0 24.0651302605 37% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 41.998997996 83% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1337.0 1615.20841683 83% => OK
No of words: 260.0 315.596192385 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.14230769231 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.20363070211 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69683959237 2.80592935109 96% => OK
Unique words: 134.0 176.041082164 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.515384615385 0.561755894193 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 399.6 506.74238477 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 5.43587174349 18% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.8517101505 49.4020404114 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.1333333333 106.682146367 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3333333333 20.7667163134 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06120827912 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.268181725732 0.244688304435 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106952158432 0.084324248473 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.137202656428 0.0667982634062 205% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.179526724069 0.151304729494 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0785009048678 0.056905535591 138% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 13.0946893788 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 50.2224549098 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.3001002004 77% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.4159519038 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.76 8.58950901804 90% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 78.4519038076 69% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 9.78957915832 66% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.