Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
It is widely seen that the number of vehicles on roads is increasing. However, people claim that roads should be cut down to invest in railways. In my opinions, I strongly agree with this statement.
To begin with, railways are more convenient than roads. It is true that railways can load and transport not only a huge weight of goods but also numerous passengers. They help to transport people and merchandise through cities, from nations to nations. This is a benefit that roads do not have since vehicles on roads have limitations. Going by trains is also safe as the speed is limited and they go only in fixed ways; therefore, it is hard to have a crash. Road accidents, on the contrary, is easy to happen. Moreover, going by train enables people to carry their luggage unlimitedly.
Another good point of railways is that they will help to protect our environment. Vehicles often use petrol or diesel which are a non-renewable energy source and dispose of smoke into the atmosphere. Road vehicles are to blame for air pollution as well as the greenhouse effect. On the other hand, even though some railways still use coal for running, recently, electricity has been popularly applied to operate this kind of transport. Not only this will reduce a significant amount of waste but also help trains to run faster and smoother. Japan and France, for instance, has invested and encouraged people to use railways because of this purpose.
To conclude, it is experienced that railways have more advantages which outweigh that of roadways; therefore, it is right for the government to focus on investing this kind of transportation,
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 514, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'running'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'train' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: running
...nt amount of waste but also help trains to run faster and smoother. Japan and France, ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 650, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...o use railways because of this purpose. To conclude, it is experienced that rail...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, moreover, so, still, therefore, well, for instance, kind of, as well as, in my opinion, it is true, on the contrary, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 24.0651302605 104% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1364.0 1615.20841683 84% => OK
No of words: 276.0 315.596192385 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.94202898551 5.12529762239 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75125756509 2.80592935109 98% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 176.041082164 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.579710144928 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 416.7 506.74238477 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.1183176792 49.4020404114 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 80.2352941176 106.682146367 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2352941176 20.7667163134 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.1764705882 7.06120827912 144% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
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: 0.207139970979 0.244688304435 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0666000773837 0.084324248473 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0629542013412 0.0667982634062 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130277320349 0.151304729494 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0473739630952 0.056905535591 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.0 13.0946893788 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 50.2224549098 127% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.3001002004 74% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.4159519038 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.58950901804 95% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 78.4519038076 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 9.78957915832 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => 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.