Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems. Do you agree or disagree? What other measures do you think might be effective?
Currently, the air contamination and traffic problems have become a big concern for many countries. Some individuals believe that raising the oil price can relieve these issues. I do not agree with this idea, as it cannot effectively address these problems.
There is no doubt that private car use is one of the main causes of the rising traffic jam and air contamination. However, higher fuel expense is less likely to limit the number of cars. As this suggestion will also affect the public transport expenditure, and it will be very unpopular with those who need travel on the road daily. But there are various approaches that can be performed in order to solve these problems.
Obviously, there are numerous ways to solve traffic congestions and pollution. First of all, current train system requires to be innovated. There is an increasing number of commuters relocate to rural areas, where houses are more affordable. If governments built more railroads between rural areas and town center, it would significantly decrease carbon dioxide emissions and the number of automobiles on the road. Furthermore, adding more bus schedules can reduce traffic at peak hours. For instance, in Auckland residents used to drive their own cars to go to work, as there were few bus services. Now based on the latest statistics from Auckland City Council, after increasing bus schedules traffic jams decreased noticeably during rush hours. A further point always raised is that driving new energy cars, like Tesla, are able to greatly decrease car exhaust. Convincing manufacturers and consumers to accept this new technology will be a more effective strategy for improving air quality.
To conclude, I would like to embrace the idea that if we just simply raise oil price, traffic and contamination issues cannot be addressed, instead it may cause other problems. There are a lot of other methods that we can adopt to deal with such issues.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 223, Rule ID: ADOPT_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'adapt to'?
Suggestion: adapt to
... are a lot of other methods that we can adopt to deal with such issues.
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, for instance, no doubt, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 41.998997996 83% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1623.0 1615.20841683 100% => OK
No of words: 317.0 315.596192385 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11987381703 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73882444324 2.80592935109 98% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 176.041082164 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.634069400631 0.561755894193 113% => OK
syllable_count: 510.3 506.74238477 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.2861956168 49.4020404114 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.1666666667 106.682146367 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6111111111 20.7667163134 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.94444444444 7.06120827912 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.160959577138 0.244688304435 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0485707014876 0.084324248473 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.050155231443 0.0667982634062 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0986312343264 0.151304729494 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0245033236397 0.056905535591 43% => 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: 11.5 13.0946893788 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 50.2224549098 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.12 12.4159519038 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.58950901804 105% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 78.4519038076 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.