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.
Our lives have changed dramatically from those of our forefathers, and we now require some form of transportation, particularly mobile features. As a result, many locals supposed that public funds might be spent on new railway lines linking cities to boost human activity, while others think the best way to invest that money is to improve existing public transportation. Consequently, this essay will discuss both views to conclude the most logical words.
Firstly, because of their busy schedules in various locations, new train lines will be appropriate for business inhabitants. These new facilities may be equipped with advanced technology that allows them to carry goods more effectively and quickly than previously. A regular train from Yulin, Guangxi to Hong Kong, for example, may take 6-7 hours, but a Shinkansen (Japanese high-speed railway) could take only 2-3 hours. As a result, this technology is a must-have for busy or modern individuals since it allows them to travel quickly and effectively between two locations.
Despite this, not everyone shares this viewpoint, since some residents prefer to spend public payments on repairing or replacing obsolete public vehicles. It is not untrue when different old transportations are completely operational and simply require minor repairs to resume accommodating inhabitants' activities. Additionally, Indonesia serves as an example. They have an ancient busway that has been in operation for almost a decade, but it began experiencing engine issues last year. The local government opted to fix it rather than purchase a new one in this case. Although it breaks down again in a short amount of time, if residents calculate the money spent on repairs, they may acquire the most recent bus, which is more worthy.
To summarize, new lines may help some people to save a significant amount of time or money, but repairing existing transportation networks will not be able to fully suit our new current existence. Personally, public funds should be used to build a new railway that integrates modern technology to adapt to our present situation.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, firstly, if, may, so, while, for example, as a result
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 : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 24.0651302605 112% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 41.998997996 86% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1776.0 1615.20841683 110% => OK
No of words: 333.0 315.596192385 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33333333333 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27180144563 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95591612581 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 176.041082164 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.63963963964 0.561755894193 114% => OK
syllable_count: 556.2 506.74238477 110% => 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: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.10420841683 333% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.4575655094 49.4020404114 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.4 106.682146367 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2 20.7667163134 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.26666666667 7.06120827912 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 3.4128256513 264% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.28037586859 0.244688304435 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.076067058448 0.084324248473 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0742637761053 0.0667982634062 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164655665807 0.151304729494 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0631602073271 0.056905535591 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.0946893788 113% => 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: 13.63 12.4159519038 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.47 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 78.4519038076 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => 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.