Nowadays, there is a controversy surrounding the issues of exceeding traffic congestion and pollution problems throughout the world. Some scholars persistently assert that a rise to the price of the petrol is the most effective way of relieving these issues. As far as I am concerned, this idea doesn’t seem appealing since there are other factors that would result in better solutions. I firmly believe that cultural information of people and developing public transportation are other possible solution that I am going to elaborate in this essay.
On the one hand, when it comes to informing people about the detrimental problem of traffic and pollution, every one claims that media is the best means to perform to handle that. Hence, government should unify their efforts to convince people to use their private vehicle more efficiently no matter how much price of that is. For example, last year government in X produces an enormous number of TV programs regarding not to driving private car with one passenger. As long as these programs commence their activities not only the rate of the traffic jams dropped by 30 percent, but the level of the toxic particle in the air decreased significantly.
On other hand, public transportation is another substantial character that plays an immense in paving the way with respect to aforementioned issues in the monster cities. Accordingly, employing public transportation is the best to lowering the traffic jams as long as nations possess the appropriate infrastructures. Although increasing in the price of the petrol could bring peace to the cities, this convenience would be surly temporary unless with existence of the efficient public transportation. For example, according to the recent survey of the municipality of the X, the number of the subway stations last year increased by 50 percent. So, this escalation transparently contributes to lightening traffic congestion during rush hours properly by 60 percent.
To sum up, it would be manifestly wise if the heads of the states not only take action in order to informing people more regarding the negative influences of the air pollution, but they should also pay more attention to boost for progress of public transportation.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, hence, if, regarding, so, for example, to sum up, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 24.0651302605 96% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 41.998997996 133% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 8.3376753507 228% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1902.0 1615.20841683 118% => OK
No of words: 359.0 315.596192385 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29805013928 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35284910392 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06654748914 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 176.041082164 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565459610028 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 581.4 506.74238477 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.384769539078 260% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
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: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 35.505748313 49.4020404114 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.857142857 106.682146367 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6428571429 20.7667163134 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.35714285714 7.06120827912 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.107604856949 0.244688304435 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0371754001719 0.084324248473 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0247113771853 0.0667982634062 37% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0607532186261 0.151304729494 40% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.034950140838 0.056905535591 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 13.0946893788 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 50.2224549098 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.3001002004 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.4159519038 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.45 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 78.4519038076 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.