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 opinions.
Nowadays, many countries are considering to build rapid train systems that make a connection between cities. They claim that this policy brings many benefits while others support the idea that the money should be used to improve the local infrastructure. In this essay, I will analyze both opinions before arriving a reasoned conclusion.
To start with, some people argue that plans like constructing high-speed railways are usually an inefficient use of public funds. First of all, they maintain that this kind of projects has a real cost far higher than their estimated budgets. Take for an example, the fast train which links Hanoi and Saigon in Vietnam took quadruple overspending budgets. In contrast, it is believed that the cost of improving the local transport like underground railways or bus systems is less expensive since these systems are already constructed, and the only work that we need to do is making it better for usage. Moreover, all the necessary facilities such as hospitals, companies, universities are available inside the city. So, the funding should be investigated to develop the local transport, especially in impoverished areas where people find difficulties to travel.
However, there are many reasons why most of the national budget should be investigated directly toward constructing high-speed railways. First, it cannot be denied that rapid train is more productive than the usual speed ones. Thanks to the development of railways, the product price can be dropped significantly. For instance, some foods that only can manufacture in a particular area, because of the weather conditions, can be transported effectively to other regions in only two hours instead of taking a whole day. Another advantage of constructing new railway lines is reducing environmental pollution since there will be fewer vehicles if people use rapid train systems. According to international researches, 80% of carbon dioxide emissions which caused the greenhouse effect and global warming come from private cars. Moreover, fuel sources like oil and gasoline which are used for vehicle operation can be saved for other industrial activities. Finally, high-speed transportation brings more opportunities for people to find a suitable job in other cites.
To sum up, both views have their merits, but I believe in many cases nation budget would be better to investigated in constructing new railway lines because of its essential advantages such as protecting the environment, decreasing goods price, and bring job opportunities for people.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 64, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'cases'' or 'case's'?
Suggestion: cases'; case's
...ave their merits, but I believe in many cases nation budget would be better to invest...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, so, while, for instance, in contrast, kind of, such as, first of all, in many cases, to start with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 13.1623246493 152% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 41.998997996 107% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2168.0 1615.20841683 134% => OK
No of words: 397.0 315.596192385 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.46095717884 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46372701284 4.20363070211 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9737519363 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 243.0 176.041082164 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.612090680101 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 668.7 506.74238477 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.6963406793 49.4020404114 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.444444444 106.682146367 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0555555556 20.7667163134 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.5 7.06120827912 120% => 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: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.291528439398 0.244688304435 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0775433245554 0.084324248473 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0468913555228 0.0667982634062 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163428021699 0.151304729494 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0130541253764 0.056905535591 23% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.0946893788 117% => 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: 14.39 12.4159519038 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.66 8.58950901804 112% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 78.4519038076 158% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => 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.