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 that the money should be spent on improving existing public transport. Discuss both these views and give your opinion.
Recently, the question of how to spend public money has become the subject of heated debate. Some people assert that improving local public transportation systems should be a priority, while others argue otherwise. And I wholeheartedly agree with the former stand. In the following essay, both views will be discussed before a conclusion is reached with my opinion.
On the one hand, those who claim that it might be beneficial to invest in the construction of a new, faster railway system do so for several reasons. Proponents of this argument insist that establishing new railway lines could facilitate the country-wide transportation of people and goods. This would mean, for instance, that people with relatives living in other parts of the country could see each other with greater ease and parcels could be delivered more quickly. Another argument is that there might be a boom in domestic tourism, stimulating regional economies. Given these points, some people hold the view that building cross-country railway lines should take priority over improving existing public transport.
My opinion, however, is that the benefits of developing local and existing public transport are more significant. Perhaps the most compelling reason is that local transport systems tend to play a greater role in citizens' everyday life, such as commuting to and from work. In other words, an increase in the quality of these systems would have a more significant impact on people's wellbeing. Furthermore, an astronomical amount of money is required to set up faster railway systems, compared to reforming existing transport systems. To exemplify, research conducted by the government of China has demonstrated the amount of tax money spent on the building of new bullet train lines is predicted three times higher than on updating current transport systems. In light of the above, I find these more persuasive.
In conclusion, it is undeniable that there are a variety of opinions about this topic. However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, I fully support the view that upgrading current public transport is more worthwhile than constructing a faster railway system for the reasons discussed above.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 127, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a careful manner" with adverb for "careful"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, I fully support the view that upgradin...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, so, well, while, for instance, in conclusion, such as, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 24.0651302605 104% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1866.0 1615.20841683 116% => OK
No of words: 349.0 315.596192385 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34670487106 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32221490584 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86114020395 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.567335243553 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 569.7 506.74238477 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.8601625124 49.4020404114 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.764705882 106.682146367 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5294117647 20.7667163134 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.58823529412 7.06120827912 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => 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: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.339130609552 0.244688304435 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0939028272388 0.084324248473 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0708623528275 0.0667982634062 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.190722561533 0.151304729494 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0646500819844 0.056905535591 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.0946893788 107% => OK
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: 13.75 12.4159519038 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.06 8.58950901804 105% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 78.4519038076 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => 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.