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.
It is debatable that growing oil prices actually helps to find out solutions for traffic jam and environmental pollution. While at first glance it seems very logical, in some conditions a downward might have vice-versa effect. This essay will investigate why rising ratio is not so appropriate in solving problems, rather than decreasing.
To start with the fact that an up in worth is not the ideal way. Taking into account that petrol is not cheap fuel, nowadays consumers mostly produce vehicles working with diesel and electricity. The former one is more harmful to the environment than oil. So, decreasing the value does not exclude the problems.
On the other hand, ratio for oil has no effect on traffic congestion. As it was mentioned above, considering the fact that oil is expensive, there is huge demand to renewable energy and fuel engines with less customer prices. Accordingly, this kind of automobiles are more demanding and supremely achievable for low-budget customers. Therefore, increasing the value of the fuel does not reduce the crowdedness in the roads.
At the end, developing the prices for petrol is not always justifiable in solving the environmental and social problems, as it implicates other more toxic fuels being used and developes the number of other kind of fuel consuming vehicles. In my opinion, a cycling is the best solution to prevent traffic jam and air pollution. Netherlands has already promoted it in their country for healthy and green life-style. No doubt, riding bikes are healthy for the organism and effective in solving environmental issues.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 341, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lving problems, rather than decreasing. To start with the fact that an up in wor...
^^^^
Line 5, column 425, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ot reduce the crowdedness in the roads. At the end, developing the prices for pe...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, actually, first, if, so, therefore, while, kind of, no doubt, in my opinion, to start with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 7.85571142285 25% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 24.0651302605 54% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 41.998997996 69% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1339.0 1615.20841683 83% => OK
No of words: 258.0 315.596192385 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.18992248062 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00778971557 4.20363070211 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85285009783 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 176.041082164 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.612403100775 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 416.7 506.74238477 82% => 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: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.4924962462 49.4020404114 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.2666666667 106.682146367 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2 20.7667163134 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.13333333333 7.06120827912 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.127288925857 0.244688304435 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0377973637286 0.084324248473 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0341231564451 0.0667982634062 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0733624298301 0.151304729494 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0325322087114 0.056905535591 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.0946893788 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 50.2224549098 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.4159519038 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.19 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 78.4519038076 98% => 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: 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.