Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
What other measures do you think might be effective?
As traffic and pollution problems are becoming more serious in today’s society, many people argue that raising the costs of fuels is the best solution for this issue. However, personally I disagree with this idea, and I believe that the government should encourage their inhabitants to use public transport.
While it is undeniable that the major cause of the increase in traffic and pollution is the use of private vehicles, the higher price of petrol would have little effect on solving the problems. Even though the costs of fuels are much higher, people still prefer traveling on their own vehicles due to its convenience and flexibility compared to other means of transport. For example, during the last ten years, the Vietnamese government has raised the fuels price to more than fivefold aiming to eliminate the use of private vehicles and protect the environment. However, the number of cars and motorbikes is still increasing dramatically, and the air is even more polluted. Clearly, the costs of petrol are not the answer to the issue.
To tackle the problems, the use of public transportation should be encouraged. Public transit such as buses or trains is more environment-friendly since they can accommodate many passengers at once. This leads to a decrease in the number of private vehicles running on the roads, and the exhaust fumes per capita. Therefore, governments should build more sky and underground train systems and upgrade the quality of bus services in order to attract more passengers. Besides, cleaner fuels need to be developed to tackle the issue of pollution. As a large amount of gas emissions from fossil fuel-based cars and motorbikes has hugely impacted on the environment, the use of more eco-friendly vehicles such as electric cars is urgent. Persuading manufacturers and travelers to adopt this new technology would be a more effective strategy for improving air quality especially in cities.
In conclusion, I believe that the price of fuels plays no role in eliminating the traffic and pollution issue and that the use of public transport and alternative fuels should be seriously considered.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...r inhabitants to use public transport. While it is undeniable that the major ca...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, however, so, still, therefore, while, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 41.998997996 107% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1805.0 1615.20841683 112% => OK
No of words: 346.0 315.596192385 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21676300578 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96167197465 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 176.041082164 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523121387283 0.561755894193 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 565.2 506.74238477 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.5550845085 49.4020404114 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.333333333 106.682146367 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0666666667 20.7667163134 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.46666666667 7.06120827912 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.110085472442 0.244688304435 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0414044614633 0.084324248473 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0487076361173 0.0667982634062 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0758632338534 0.151304729494 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.030290382506 0.056905535591 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.0946893788 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 50.2224549098 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.4159519038 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.16 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 78.4519038076 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.78957915832 138% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => 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.