Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
It becomes a controversial topic these days about the effective method of transport systems. The government in many countries does a lot of research in searching which transport systems that should be subsidized heavily. Consequently, some assert that investing on railways is the best way to spend money on rather than prioritizing in roads. Personally, I completely agree with this policy for a couple of reasons.
To begin with, establishing new railways has a significant improvement in traffic problems. With the availability and efficiency of trains, it gravitates the high number of passengers, decreasing private car users, and reducing the congested traffic finally. Unlike building more roads, this policy will increase the car drivers instead.
Secondly, in term of environment concerns, the railways development definitely ease the air pollution in cities as well. Transportation is mainly responsible for global warming because of the high amount of toxic gases released from cars. As a result, introducing new eco-friendly engines such as sky-trains or subways will significantly reduce the amount of carbon emission to the atmosphere and tackle the global warming issue eventually.
Lastly, considering the land issue, building more roads requires a dramatic land. The deforestation and land degradation are negative consequences of this change. Although the construction of railroads requires some space, leading to deforestation as well, the need is still lesser than the space for the road construction.
In conclusion, there are several positive points of developing railroads as it promotes the use of public transport systems and of cause it is an environmentally friendly scheme. In contrast, the road extension leads to land destruction and creates more air pollution. Therefore, the government totally needs to spend the revenue on increasing railroads rather than roads.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 48, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'railways'' or 'railway's'?
Suggestion: railways'; railway's
...y, in term of environment concerns, the railways development definitely ease the air pol...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 129, Rule ID: OF_CAUSE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'of course' (=naturally)?
Suggestion: of course
...the use of public transport systems and of cause it is an environmentally friendly schem...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, well, in conclusion, in contrast, such as, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 24.0651302605 46% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1624.0 1615.20841683 101% => OK
No of words: 286.0 315.596192385 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.67832167832 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.18853513711 2.80592935109 114% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 176.041082164 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.622377622378 0.561755894193 111% => OK
syllable_count: 488.7 506.74238477 96% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.384769539078 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.4407010862 49.4020404114 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.5 106.682146367 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.875 20.7667163134 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 7.06120827912 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => 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: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.20508764412 0.244688304435 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0630946382653 0.084324248473 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0783087762099 0.0667982634062 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103983881728 0.151304729494 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0820870731835 0.056905535591 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.0946893788 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 50.2224549098 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.37 12.4159519038 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.89 8.58950901804 115% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 78.4519038076 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.