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.
Currently, there is a source of controversy whether investing money into building new railway lines for fast trains between cities is more essential than that into renewing existing public transport or not. From my perspective, there are strong views on both sides, which I will outline now.
On the one hand, environmental issues might partly reduce once governments allocate money for improving public transport. For one thing, installing cutting-edge technology such as air conditioners and applying clean energy like electricity for public transit will appeal to people as it is modern, pollution-free and comfortable for passengers. Instead of using private cars, therefore, people have a tendency to use public transport frequently, which can limit the excessive amount of carbon emission from vehicles. Moreover, compared with constructing railways, upgrading current public transportation system does not cost much time. Workers, for instance, spend at least two years on building railway line for trains, while it just takes around three months to upgrade a bus.
On the other hand, many argue that significant sums of money are needed for installing new train railway lines between cities. It seems true that trains may reduce the long distance between metropolises, carry extra goods and passengers as well as save time more effectively than conventional road transport system. The other reason is that rail communication is environmentally friendly. According to research, the amount of carbon footprint released from trains is less than that of private vehicles by 80%. If individuals opt for trains, there would be fewer vehicles on roads, thereby cutting CO2 emissions. However, it requires additional labor workforce and money to have train railway lines done.
To sum up, I believe that money contributed to improve public transport should be more prioritized than building new railway lines for fast trains between cities, for it is more time-saving, cost-effective and it also helps to cut environmental pollution.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, moreover, so, therefore, well, while, at least, for instance, such as, as well as, for one thing, 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: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 41.998997996 81% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1733.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 312.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.55448717949 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95151588271 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 176.041082164 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.628205128205 0.561755894193 112% => OK
syllable_count: 519.3 506.74238477 102% => 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: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.7619943902 49.4020404114 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.785714286 106.682146367 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2857142857 20.7667163134 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.0714285714 7.06120827912 157% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => 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: 0.374680154847 0.244688304435 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119903758159 0.084324248473 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0965486681037 0.0667982634062 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.243648288253 0.151304729494 161% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.046491894466 0.056905535591 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 13.0946893788 121% => 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: 15.21 12.4159519038 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.58950901804 105% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 78.4519038076 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.