In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Some people assert that government should introduce new fast trains between cities in some countries and not making already existing public transport better. I will illustrate both these views in this essay, but according to me government should introduce new transport facility.
On the one hand, constructing new transport means modern technology which will be super effective and quick by nature. Since the evolution of technology, people have introduced fast trains that can travel between cities in minimal time. For example, the travel time which took 5-6 hours between two cities, now is only 2-3 hours which is almost half. This has happened because of bullet and metro trains. They say sometimes we have to go with the trend and time. Over the years population has increased to another level. In India, managing so much crowd wouldn't be possible if government didn't introduce new and fast frequency trains. It has become more of a mandatory situation compared to an opinion. Also, new things are always better and sensible decision than doing patch work on already working facility. Furthermore, today time is so important for people, hence these fast trains can solve this problem immediately. Moreover, modern technology is also environment friendly, meaning they are fuel-efficient and cause less pollution in the city. The cost of developing this new facility would look huge now, but its beneficial consequences are long lasting for the several years for the masses.
On the other hand, some developing countries with inefficient funds may alter their existing public transport. The introduction of new transport may lead to hike in taxes for the public. For this matter, some countries instead try to make their existing transport more better and cheap for the public. To illustrate more, some countries don't have enough land to building new railway lines. Also, for them it gets difficult to stop the existing facility while they are building new ones. If a country has some budget planned they believe in increasing the number of existing transport and not introducing a whole new plan. For instance, increasing number of same but little improved bus and train frequency for public welfare.
In conclusion, I would reiterate that if it's possible for a country to introduce new transport facility then it should because the advantages definitely outweigh the disadvantages for a long time solution point of view.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 411, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[9]
Message: The adverb 'sometimes' is usually put before the verb 'say'.
Suggestion: sometimes say
...ecause of bullet and metro trains. They say sometimes we have to go with the trend and time. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 473, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
...to go with the trend and time. Over the years population has increased to another lev...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 555, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...level. In India, managing so much crowd wouldnt be possible if government didnt introdu...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 589, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...crowd wouldnt be possible if government didnt introduce new and fast frequency trains...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 669, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rains. It has become more of a mandatory situation compared to an opinion. Also, ...
^^
Line 5, column 265, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'better' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: better
...ad try to make their existing transport more better and cheap for the public. To illustrate...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 338, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...lic. To illustrate more, some countries dont have enough land to building new railwa...
^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nd train frequency for public welfare. In conclusion, I would reiterate that if...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, hence, if, look, may, moreover, so, then, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2049.0 1615.20841683 127% => OK
No of words: 391.0 315.596192385 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24040920716 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44676510885 4.20363070211 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66819465079 2.80592935109 95% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 176.041082164 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.542199488491 0.561755894193 97% => OK
syllable_count: 624.6 506.74238477 123% => 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: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 16.0721442886 137% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.4920743121 49.4020404114 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.1363636364 106.682146367 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7727272727 20.7667163134 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.06120827912 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.01903807615 159% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.67935871743 150% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 3.4128256513 234% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.289307509149 0.244688304435 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0836552321357 0.084324248473 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0658796411046 0.0667982634062 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.18263735889 0.151304729494 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0697824257944 0.056905535591 123% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.0946893788 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 50.2224549098 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.4159519038 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.79 8.58950901804 91% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 78.4519038076 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.