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?
It would be argued that the only approach to reducing the number of vehicles in big cities is to restrict the working, educational and shopping demand. I firmly agree this is a promising measure, yet i still reckon that it is not the only way.
To begin with, reducing the need for people to travel from home for work, education and shopping can be considered as one of the effective practices to ease the amount of traffic in cities. In other words, this means that there would be an improvement of high-technological facilities and online services, online meeting applications which is used for educational and working purposes. Additionally, delivery service would be developed as the demand for online shopping rises. In this regard, concentrating on developing these means of online platforms actually have sustainable impacts on reducing the need for travelling, therefore, ease the amount of traffic.
In addition, from my perspective, this is not the only efficient approach to lowering the number of vehicles. To be more specific, raising fuel prices and creating heavier taxes on personal vehicles ownership can also be regarded as another promising method. By imposing these privacies, people would avoid purchasing and using personal means of transportation, subsequently, the amount of traffic on street would be reduced.
In conclusion, in terms of diminishing the number of vehicles in cities, reducing people's need for travelling can be listed as an effective method, yet i believe that there exists other numerous ways to solve the conundrum.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 191, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'vehicles'' or 'vehicle's'?
Suggestion: vehicles'; vehicle's
... and creating heavier taxes on personal vehicles ownership can also be regarded as anoth...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 153, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
...n be listed as an effective method, yet i believe that there exists other numerou...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, if, so, still, therefore, in addition, in conclusion, in other words, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 41.998997996 83% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 8.3376753507 48% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1320.0 1615.20841683 82% => OK
No of words: 249.0 315.596192385 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.30120481928 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.97237131171 4.20363070211 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02669531038 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 134.0 176.041082164 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.538152610442 0.561755894193 96% => OK
syllable_count: 414.0 506.74238477 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 16.0721442886 62% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.4765454009 49.4020404114 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.0 106.682146367 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9 20.7667163134 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.9 7.06120827912 140% => 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 : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.338056834795 0.244688304435 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.138987380469 0.084324248473 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.115326196998 0.0667982634062 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.196069012046 0.151304729494 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0936986421849 0.056905535591 165% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 13.0946893788 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 50.2224549098 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.4159519038 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.65 8.58950901804 112% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 78.4519038076 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.78957915832 148% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
More content wanted.
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.