People are calling into question the ways of spending money on the development of railways. While some advocate the idea that it is imperative to expend money for drawing new railways, others dismiss them in favour of improving existing railways. Both sides of arguments present rational ideas, which will be elaborated.
On the one hand, supporters of drawing new rail lines assert that the benefits accruing from them are by no means negligible. To begin with, since the vast majority of businesses have been located in the countryside, new railways enable passengers to access remote areas. That is to say, they have the ability to commute efficiently. For instance, when having faced with a fulfilled job opportunity they can make a down-to-earth decision without concerning about commute. Moreover, by transporting fastly, people can easily cope with their stress about work-life balance. This, in turn, has a far-reaching positive impact on their performance, affecting manifold aspects of their personal life.
On the other hand, others put forward the argument that the reconstructing railways are more vital by nature. The most compelling reason justifying their assertion is that the expanded money on railways can be spent on improving safety passengers. In another word, instead of drawing new railways, responsible entities can allot this budget to equipping and maintaining old rail lines. A good illustration of this is the incident of trains happening annually in Iran which leave a cascade of injured passengers due to the technical problems. Furthermore, lasting and tangible benefits can be reaped of this strategy.
To conclude, there are logical points on both views; however, I am of the opinion that spending money on rebuilding up and maintaining old railways is a crucial method and it is not fruitless compared to drawing new railways.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, while, for instance, to begin with, on the other hand, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 41.998997996 121% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1578.0 1615.20841683 98% => OK
No of words: 295.0 315.596192385 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34915254237 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89485174384 2.80592935109 103% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 176.041082164 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.610169491525 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 484.2 506.74238477 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.0057773606 49.4020404114 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.2 106.682146367 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6666666667 20.7667163134 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.26666666667 7.06120827912 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.211648002953 0.244688304435 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0642615737337 0.084324248473 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0581671819531 0.0667982634062 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134085114336 0.151304729494 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0610757315305 0.056905535591 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.0946893788 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 50.2224549098 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.3001002004 95% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.4159519038 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.82 8.58950901804 114% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 78.4519038076 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.