Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve traffic and pollution problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree? What other measures do you think might be effective?
The significance of increasing the price of petrol which was always debatable has now become more controversial with many people claiming that it is beneficial while others disagree. However, rising the cast of fuel is the great idea to eliminate a large number of traffic and pollution drawbacks. In my opinion, to reduce environmental pollution and traffic jam, fixing high charge on petrol is more logical. This essay will elaborate the reasons attributing to this trend along with effective solutions in the looming paragraphs.
To begin with, nowadays the number of vehicles are gowing rapidly as a result, traffic jam and air pollution bath are showed as threat for nature. Besides, if governments take a step to raise expensive rate for fuel, it will assist to consume using of private car due to the high price many people will feel less interest to drive car regularly. Moreover, most of the individuals will depend on public transport to avoide the pricy fuel and for that reason, the movement of transports will remove slowly and environment will get free from pollutions such as air pollution, noise pollution, water pollution. Therefore, government should be concerned to increase price of petrol for consuming use of vehicles.
On the other hand, there are some solutions to improve traffic and pollution problems. Furthermore, authorities can rise the amount of public buses with numeraus facilities as people will encourage to use daily life. In addition, authorities should provide strict laws to remove the number of increasing cars through fixing time when people can move with privat transports. Hence, these effective measures can be developed drawbacks of environment pollution and traffic jam.
To sum up, according to the arguments mentioned above one can reach to a conclusion that the benefits of rising the charge of fuel are instrumentally indeed. However, authorities should be focused to consume using of vehicles to improve traffic jams and pollution
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 248, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
... of fuel is the great idea to eliminate a large number of traffic and pollution drawbacks. In my ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 199, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'using'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'encourage' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: using
...aus facilities as people will encourage to use daily life. In addition, authorities sh...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, furthermore, hence, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, while, in addition, such as, as a result, in my opinion, to begin with, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 7.85571142285 178% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 9.0 24.0651302605 37% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1676.0 1615.20841683 104% => OK
No of words: 317.0 315.596192385 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28706624606 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81293571737 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 176.041082164 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.567823343849 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 531.9 506.74238477 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.8625386234 49.4020404114 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.714285714 106.682146367 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6428571429 20.7667163134 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.2857142857 7.06120827912 174% => 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 : 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: 0.137581346671 0.244688304435 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0592446555224 0.084324248473 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0478187147694 0.0667982634062 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0887239712294 0.151304729494 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0284900689616 0.056905535591 50% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.0946893788 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.4159519038 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.76 8.58950901804 102% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 78.4519038076 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.