Population growth, especially in big cities, cause numerous problems for people include traffic congestion and obviously, there was always a sizable chunk of effort to find a reasonable solution. On the one hand, we need to prepare a feasible strategy in order to reduce the sheer amount of vehicles and on the other hand we should convince people to make alternative choices in term of municipal travels.
According to the topic, use of technology to do daily works without the necessity of going out can be a beneficial suggestion to shrink a volume of jam. Likewise, by taking an advantage from technological devices, people have this chance to save up more times instead of wasting that in traffic. Moreover, We can cut down on our fuel consumption by having fewer cars on the streets and also we can mention a more couple of benefits that this method has. However, the reverse is true.
A thorny vision of this method is that the reduction of movement could have a negative impact on the mental and physical health of human, dramatically in children. Constant use of communicational equipment highly likely result in many of diseases in the future. Meanwhile, that affects on lack of children capabilities in realistic interaction with their peers in educational environments which I believe is justifiably crucial. Considering all these facts, I think we cannot simply convince people to accept the strategy of staying at home.
To sum up, in my perspective there is a simple way to reduce a traffic congestion and also maintain the interactions between people, that is the improvement of public transportation. With a proper investment from government and effective contribution from people to abandon their private cars, we can step effectively to solve this problem.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 341, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...step effectively to solve this problem.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, likewise, moreover, so, while, i think, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 41.998997996 143% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1489.0 1615.20841683 92% => OK
No of words: 292.0 315.596192385 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09931506849 5.12529762239 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13376432452 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98827029161 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 176.041082164 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.630136986301 0.561755894193 112% => OK
syllable_count: 477.0 506.74238477 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => 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: 46.4473267979 49.4020404114 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.083333333 106.682146367 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3333333333 20.7667163134 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.66666666667 7.06120827912 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.15645591548 0.244688304435 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0450962509505 0.084324248473 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0379671333493 0.0667982634062 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0872393345642 0.151304729494 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0409344170456 0.056905535591 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.0946893788 113% => 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: 12.6 12.4159519038 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.53 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 78.4519038076 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.78957915832 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => 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.