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.
Recently, the phenomenon of inter-cities and intra-cities transportation and its corresponding impacts have sparked a massive dispute. In this regard, a remarkable number of individuals believe that a big proportion of funds should be spent on developing railways rather than improving current public transport. In my view, spending money on modification of fast-train railways is more beneficial than enhancement of public transport facilities regarding economy and environmental concerns.
Obviously, although a majority of the world’s population are working in megacities like NYC, London, and Tokyo, they live in nearby small towns or suburbs. Undoubtedly, it is necessary to provide them with fast and convenient facilities by which they have no problem to get their workplace. So, developing new railways for such fast trains would be a great solution. At the same time, these types of trains are capable of transferring efficiently far more passengers, than any other kinds of vehicles, as well as cargos to their destinations.
Moreover, environmental issues such as leaking petroleum into oceans and greenhouse gas emissions are the main concerns of humanity in the 21th century. Thus, spreading sophisticated modern electric or magnetic trains which don’t need to burn fossil fuels, contrary to traditional trains, may lead to decline of greenhouse gas emissions significantly. Meanwhile, under these circumstances there is less need to carry petroleum across oceans or to struggle new crude oil well discoveries. Consequently, leakage of pollutants into oceans and damages of the environment will fall.
On the other hand, we shouldn’t lose sight of others’ beliefs. They are of the opinion that governments should spend plenty of budgets to enhance existing public transportation. Expanding such facilities as buses or trams, eventually ends up to producing fewer cars and vehicles in even short-term. Far fewer cars in the roads make the cities far silent, and then the sound pollution in big cities will be alleviated. Psychologically speaking, the temper of city dwellers shall be milder and psychological disorders regarding high-pitched sounds will diminish.
To sum up, despite compelling arguments on both sides, I opt to support the idea that the merits of spending money on railroads instead of public transportation far outweigh its downsides. Imagine, without fast inter-city trains, we may witness congestion as long as the distances between cities in not far distant future.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, then, thus, well, while, such as, as well as, in my view, 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: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 41.998997996 143% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2133.0 1615.20841683 132% => OK
No of words: 381.0 315.596192385 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.59842519685 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20648338124 2.80592935109 114% => OK
Unique words: 240.0 176.041082164 136% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.629921259843 0.561755894193 112% => OK
syllable_count: 637.2 506.74238477 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.7043577323 49.4020404114 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.5 106.682146367 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1666666667 20.7667163134 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.44444444444 7.06120827912 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
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: 0.273455649296 0.244688304435 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0716671088386 0.084324248473 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0670961016987 0.0667982634062 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136512891066 0.151304729494 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0818340129386 0.056905535591 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 13.0946893788 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.2 12.4159519038 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.86 8.58950901804 115% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 78.4519038076 159% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.7795591182 148% => 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.