Nowadays, many people think that money should be spent more for railways instead of for roads by the governments. In my point of view, I totally disagree with this idea because of some reasons such as cost and its effectiveness.
On the one hand, there are some main reasons make people believe that government’s money should be used on railways. Thanks to the developments of technology, trains have become faster than ever with a lot of convenience included in. In fact, Japanese trains was one of the fastest vehicle in the world with a lot of satisfactions like restaurant or waiters. In addition, the upgrading of railways also has a significant role in the reduction of carbon emission and protect the environment. The amount of carbon could be decreased due to the reducing of private vehicles users who change to use trains to travel.
However, I still believe that the money should be use for roads more than railways. The level of cost for the improvements of trains and railways construction could be very high. It could be a large burden on the finance for many countries throughout the world for this. Moreover, with this amount of money, improving the quality of roads could be a better choice for the governments. With this, more millions of people could have positive affections than the railways improvements. Therefore, I believe that with the same amount of money, the result for roads is better than trains constructions. For example, in Spain, most money was used for roads rather than trains and lead to many great streets for their residents and tourist come to this country.
In conclusion, it is undeniable that the money used for railways can bring many goods impacts but upgrading roads is a better choice for government because of its cost and the affection on many aspects of resident’s lives.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 604, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'traveling', 'travelling'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'train' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: traveling; travelling
...vehicles users who change to use trains to travel. However, I still believe that the ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 52, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
... still believe that the money should be use for roads more than railways. The level...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, moreover, so, still, therefore, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 41.998997996 110% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1528.0 1615.20841683 95% => OK
No of words: 310.0 315.596192385 98% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92903225806 5.12529762239 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76604956154 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 176.041082164 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.487096774194 0.561755894193 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 455.4 506.74238477 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.5059994463 49.4020404114 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.866666667 106.682146367 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6666666667 20.7667163134 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.53333333333 7.06120827912 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => 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: 0.18426639929 0.244688304435 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0752377636426 0.084324248473 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0561440201967 0.0667982634062 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121678033747 0.151304729494 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0284404484348 0.056905535591 50% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.0946893788 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 50.2224549098 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.4159519038 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.84 8.58950901804 91% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 78.4519038076 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => 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.