The only way to reduce the amount of traffic in cities today is by reducing the need for people to travel from home for work, education or shopping.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The rise in population in many parts of the world has catalyzed higher levels of traffic. In response to this trend, some claim that only by cutting down on the need for commuting to work, school or shopping can traffic be reduced. However, I must disagree with this rather militant point of view. With the following composition, I will elaborate upon two reasons supporting my point of view.
First of all, reducing the need for people to travel from home to carry out their daily essential activities may not lead to a decrease in traffic at all. To elaborate, today, people have to resort to either their own vehicles, carpooling or public transport to get to their school, their workplace, or their favored grocery stores. While it is possible to receive education or complete work without any usage of cars and similar vehicles, it is impossible for the deliver of groceries and other goods not to use any vehicles. Moreover, should people shift from going to brick-and-mortar stores to having their groceries shipped to their front doors, vendors and grocers must use even more cars, bikes and trucks to get those delivered. Generating even higher levels of traffic, this can put more stress upon the traffic infrastructure system.
Secondly, cutting on the need for people to leave their homes for school, work or shopping is far from the only practical solution to the traffic question. In fact, improving and promoting the local public transportation system is a more practical and economical solution. Bus, tram and train systems – the successful renovation of these public transport components can allow for more riders, and people are more incentivized to take advantage of these systems. Therefore, less stress will be put on the road system, and traffic will be clearer.
In conclusion, limiting the need to depart home to carry out work, education or essential purchases is not the only solution to the pressing problem of crowded traffic. this is because such a scheme is far from being the ideal solution, and it may even prove counter-productive.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 462, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
... similar vehicles, it is impossible for the deliver of groceries and other goods not to use...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 170, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...he pressing problem of crowded traffic. this is because such a scheme is far from be...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, in conclusion, in fact, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 7.85571142285 191% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 10.4138276553 163% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 7.30460921844 14% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 41.998997996 133% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1732.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 344.0 315.596192385 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03488372093 5.12529762239 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30665032142 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76817461474 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 176.041082164 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.543604651163 0.561755894193 97% => OK
syllable_count: 528.3 506.74238477 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.7840153481 49.4020404114 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.466666667 106.682146367 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9333333333 20.7667163134 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.4 7.06120827912 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.251639600826 0.244688304435 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.081735286442 0.084324248473 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0866670829717 0.0667982634062 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14564066824 0.151304729494 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.024285036724 0.056905535591 43% => 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: 13.7 13.0946893788 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 50.2224549098 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.3001002004 95% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.4159519038 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.58950901804 98% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 78.4519038076 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.