Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve the traffic and pollution problems.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
What other measures do you think might be effective?
Environmental pollution is one of the global concerns these days with the rapid surge in usage of motor vehicles by the population all over the world. Some asserts that the increase in price of petrol is the way to reduce the traffic and pollution problems. I completely agree with the above claim that price hikes in petrol may help the world in using less vehicles, but launching public transport and emission free vehicles are the best measures.
First, Increasing the value of petrol is one of the good ideas to solve the problems related to traffic and damage to nature. People can reduce the usage of vehicles if there is a hike in fuels. They will minimize their expenses in their income. This in turn helps the country's economy. To demonstrate this, a person who earns an income of around 20,000/- has to spend a minimum amount of about 5000/- on petrol on a monthly basis. Increasing rates in petrol can make it possible to permit the limit in using their own vehicles for the transport. This is one of the pivotal reasons behind the rise in the cost of fuel for the solution to limit the affordable expenses.
However, with the introduction of electric vehicles into the market will control the flaws produced by human activities to nature. Additionally, the government should be responsible to provide strict rules and regulations on the commodities such as penalizing them if they disobey the rules. They should completely abolish the motor vehicles and need to launch the emission free vehicles into the business industry with affordable prices to the common people. Moreover, people can share their means of transport with each other and can avail public transport such as buses and small trucks to reach their workplaces.
To recapitulate it, as it stands now, transport congestion and environmental pollution can be significantly controlled by increasing the costs of fossil fuels, but measures to introduce the electric vehicles, public modes, and sharing the transport are the best plausible ways.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 354, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun vehicles is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...s in petrol may help the world in using less vehicles, but launching public transpor...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, moreover, so, as to, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 41.998997996 133% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1689.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 336.0 315.596192385 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02678571429 5.12529762239 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28139028586 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67760399196 2.80592935109 95% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 176.041082164 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535714285714 0.561755894193 95% => OK
syllable_count: 524.7 506.74238477 104% => 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
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => 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: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.4968435696 49.4020404114 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.6 106.682146367 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4 20.7667163134 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.86666666667 7.06120827912 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.133435168626 0.244688304435 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0471776728135 0.084324248473 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0623582298624 0.0667982634062 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0877182410187 0.151304729494 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0432719598227 0.056905535591 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 13.0946893788 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 50.2224549098 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.4159519038 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.58950901804 100% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 78.4519038076 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.78957915832 138% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => 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.