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.
In some countries, people believe that a large amount of money should be spent on building new railway lines for high-speed trains between cities while opponents support that operative public transport upgrade is dominant. Although the construction of new railroad tracks has its valid points, I believe that funds should be allocated for the advance of current public transits.
On the one hand, constructing new railway lines for bullet trains will aid and abet citizens to transport more quickly and conveniently. For instance, in Vietnam, instead of spending 2 days to travel from the South to the North by train, one can travel more rapidly with a lesser period of time if high-speed trains constructed. The government now can decide optimal routes to build modern rail lines based on citizen's demand and need, thereby targeting resources will use effectively. However, building new railway lines could cost considerable expense. In particular, to construct new high-speech rail project that requires land acquisition and resettlement, a ton of civil works, rolling stock and so on. In addition, bullet trains may only benefit a small section of the population who use trains between major cities. This is problematic for individuals to travel to rural areas when it is unlikely to use the high-speech train to travel to such places so they will choose the coach.
On the other hand, budgets should be spent on improving and maintaining public transport such as buses, trains and ferries rather than rapid trains. Public transportation is essential for any modern community due to its cheaper and convenient travel for one when living in megacities. For instance, in Vietnam, the buses' subsidy of government assists students to move to schools or universities by bus more cheaper. Public transport development might attract citizens to use such transportation frequently rather than their own vehicles, thereby the environment partly will be enhanced. To illustrate, instead of using own vehicles, more people using public transportation will cut gas exhaust and global warming.
In conclusion, although both viewpoints mentioned have its pros and cons, I strongly believe that the budget should be spent on boosting public transportation instead of new railway lines of high-speech trains.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 281, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...e can travel more rapidly with a lesser period of time if high-speed trains constructed. The g...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 934, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'traveling', 'travelling'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'train' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: traveling; travelling
...s unlikely to use the high-speech train to travel to such places so they will choose the ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 316, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'buses'' or 'bus's'?
Suggestion: buses'; bus's
...gacities. For instance, in Vietnam, the buses subsidy of government assists students ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 403, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'cheaper' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: cheaper
... move to schools or universities by bus more cheaper. Public transport development might att...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, may, so, while, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, in particular, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 7.85571142285 191% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 41.998997996 110% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 8.3376753507 204% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1944.0 1615.20841683 120% => OK
No of words: 361.0 315.596192385 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38504155125 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35889894354 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89632555908 2.80592935109 103% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548476454294 0.561755894193 98% => OK
syllable_count: 565.2 506.74238477 112% => 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: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 12.0 4.76152304609 252% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.9898484572 49.4020404114 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.6 106.682146367 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0666666667 20.7667163134 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.46666666667 7.06120827912 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.01903807615 80% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => 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: 0.311730702968 0.244688304435 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.107548513424 0.084324248473 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.094668315877 0.0667982634062 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.215127227413 0.151304729494 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.1068140305 0.056905535591 188% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 13.0946893788 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 50.2224549098 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.28 12.4159519038 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.07 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 78.4519038076 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.78957915832 138% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.