Some people believe that governments have to spend money on railways rather than spend it on roads. I completely agree with the view because of several reasons.
Firstly, spending money on constructing more railways will support more new train routes to open. A lot of new trains which operate in new routes will then accommodate more people who want to travel from a place to another place. As a result, this will help people who want to commute using trains without having to ride another public transportation in the middle of their journeys. For instance, in Singapore, the train routes cover almost all areas in the country, and has been connected in one network. Consequently, people can travel using train easily and rapidly to their destined places, without having to ride bus or taxi in the middle of their journeys to reach their destined places.
Secondly, using money on bettering existing train railways will provide safer and better lanes for trains to pass on. The safer the trains are, the more interesting they will appear to citizens. If citizens are sure that riding train is safe, they will choose to travel using them instead of driving their own cars. Consequently, the level of traffic congestion can be reduced because the number of cars in the roads are decreasing. For example, in Austria, the rapid trains there are known as great and safe for passengers. As a result, many people choose to ride them and Austria is known as one of the least congested countries in the world.
In conclusion, I completely agree that it is better for governments to spend money on railways instead of roads because spending money on constructing more railways will support more new train routes to open, which will ease people who want to commuter using trains. Moreover, using money on bettering existing train railways will provide safer and better lanes for trains to pass on, which will attract citizens to ride them instead of riding their own vehicles.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 107, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'passing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'train' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: passing
...ovide safer and better lanes for trains to pass on. The safer the trains are, the more ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 374, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'passing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'train' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: passing
...ovide safer and better lanes for trains to pass on, which will attract citizens to ride...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, firstly, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, for example, for instance, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 41.998997996 121% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.3376753507 36% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1644.0 1615.20841683 102% => OK
No of words: 333.0 315.596192385 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93693693694 5.12529762239 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27180144563 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47250935118 2.80592935109 88% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 176.041082164 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.447447447447 0.561755894193 80% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 494.1 506.74238477 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.7726960744 49.4020404114 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.6 106.682146367 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2 20.7667163134 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.33333333333 7.06120827912 118% => 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 : 0.0 3.9879759519 0% => 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: 0.134576983579 0.244688304435 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0589968057122 0.084324248473 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0864224418323 0.0667982634062 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135972359909 0.151304729494 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.11574232391 0.056905535591 203% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.0946893788 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 50.2224549098 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.3001002004 95% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 12.4159519038 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.43 8.58950901804 87% => OK
difficult_words: 57.0 78.4519038076 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.