The large number of private cars on the roads in many parts of the world has led to serious problems of pollution and may contribute to global warming. Some people think that governments should spend money for the development of public transportation systems in order to help and solve this problem. Others think that it is better to spend money for the development of electric and other type of cars that cause less pollution.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge and experience.
A vast amount of CO2 human has emitted is said the main reason of the accelerating global warming. As cars become cheaper and owned by more population in the world, the pollution caused by car emission has been getting greater. There are 2 solutions often suggested about government’s subsidence on researches for technology development; Governments should financially support to develop public transportation or new type of cars producing no carbon.
I find points in both solutions, and I believe using them to suitable cases the most important.
Using public transportation such as trains and buses are the easiest way among people to take an action to reduce carbon emission immediately. Developing trains have a lot of advantages on the issue. Some special trains take us to destinations faster than cars in most cases. They will modify traffic jams on roads, too. On the other hand, despite those merits, mountains are often made a hole for tunnels in order to make a new railway, and it sometimes give a bad effect on water source there. Because of this, Shizuoka is now stopping JR to construct a new railway through mountains of Shizuoka so that they can keep a lake level.
When it comes to new types of cars emitting no carbon, they would take some time to be affordable to more people even though some of them are already available like electric cars. But once they are spread well among people, the shift of cars in the main stream makes a big difference on the total emission. One thing we have to note is the way to produce the energy. If we have to burn more fossils for producing electricity used for cars despite our effort to reduce carbon emission from cars, it does not make sense.
Both have advantages and disadvantages as seen above. Therefore, I believe it the best that both are used in balance. They should provide citizens cheaper and more frequent public transportation whereas the invention of new type of cars is must in cases an introduction of transportation may harm environments or simply difficult.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 456, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'gives'?
Suggestion: gives
...to make a new railway, and it sometimes give a bad effect on water source there. Bec...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, may, so, therefore, well, whereas, such as, in most cases, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 41.998997996 119% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1721.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 347.0 315.596192385 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95965417867 5.12529762239 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02827959243 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.590778097983 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 543.6 506.74238477 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => 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: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.1190652182 49.4020404114 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.235294118 106.682146367 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4117647059 20.7667163134 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 7.06120827912 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
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: 0.181019074075 0.244688304435 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0493582398031 0.084324248473 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0508429335138 0.0667982634062 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0950415331262 0.151304729494 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0709637983627 0.056905535591 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.0946893788 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 50.2224549098 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.4159519038 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.58950901804 98% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 78.4519038076 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.