Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, traffic problem is one of the most complicated problems that governments in countries have to deal with, especially in developing and crowded countries. In order to control and solve this problem, one of the good solutions many people tend to think of is raising petrol’s price and they believe that it also plays a significant role in reducing pollution problem. Personally, increasing price of petrol is a good idea but it’s not the most effective solution.
Firstly, raising petrol’s gas may lead to lots of negative influences in people’s lives. In fact, lots of people lay emphasis on its visual positive effects on reducing using private vehicles and it, as the result, will considerably contribute to decreasing traffic jam and pollution problems as well. Obviously, no one can deny that when the price of petrol rises, people will have tendency to travel by public transportations to save for themselves, and therefore traffic and pollution problems can be reduced significantly. However, it also results in other difficulties for people’s lives. More specific, when gas price increases, the cost of other things also rise because of increasing of shipping expenses such as the cost of foods, drinks, other basic necessities. Further more, people also have to pay more for expensive services like medical service, insurance or tourism. That’s the reason why they have to work harder and earn more money to finance these higher expenses in daily life, especially in poor areas of the world. Conclusively, the higher of petrol’s gas, the more difficult lives people have to live.
Lastly, raising gas’ price is not the best solution because there are several other effective solutions, of which, encouraging people use biology power is one of the most beneficial. Indeed, many believe that it’s really difficult to reduce travel demand of people, so the solution is using clean and safe powerful instead of gas may decline pollution problems. Let’s take Japan or Singapore as an example, in these countries, residents are stimulated to use biology power for their private vehicles and lots of electric cars are used. That’s the reason why these countries are of the cleanest countries in the world. Furthermore, encouraging people travel by public transportations are also good ways. In lots of countries, bus’s ticket and electric train’s ticket are not only very cheap, but they are also reduced for regular costumers, thus, public transportations are considered as main vehicles of people. Or in European countries like German or England, benefits for health of walking or travelling by bike are usually posted on daily newspapers. Obviously, it’s also a good way to stimulate people to reduce using their cars or motorbike and partially contribute to decreasing traffic and pollution problems.
As discussed, even though raising petrol’s gas is a good idea to reduce traffic jam and polluted environment, yet it also leads to a lot of difficulties for people in daily lives and encouraging people to use biology gas, travel by public transportation, by bike or by foot are always most effective ever.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 770, Rule ID: BASIC_FUNDAMENTALS[1]
Message: Use simply 'necessities'.
Suggestion: necessities
...uch as the cost of foods, drinks, other basic necessities. Further more, people also have to pay ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 8, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ult lives people have to live. Lastly, raising gas' price is not the best ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, lastly, may, really, so, therefore, thus, well, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 10.4138276553 240% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 41.998997996 162% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2699.0 1615.20841683 167% => OK
No of words: 504.0 315.596192385 160% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35515873016 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.20363070211 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01001349639 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 176.041082164 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.464285714286 0.561755894193 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 856.8 506.74238477 169% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 5.43587174349 18% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.384769539078 260% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 16.0721442886 124% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 59.9483944739 49.4020404114 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.95 106.682146367 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2 20.7667163134 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.85 7.06120827912 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
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: 0.114325159568 0.244688304435 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0419756135976 0.084324248473 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0439134592909 0.0667982634062 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0842595431874 0.151304729494 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0272842737443 0.056905535591 48% => 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: 16.4 13.0946893788 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 50.2224549098 75% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.58950901804 101% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 78.4519038076 154% => 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: 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.