The overgrowth in use of private vehicles in traffic nowadays has made an atrocious impact to the environment, which directly leads to global warming problem. Hence, in order to solve the issue, several ideas have been sorted out. While some people support in upgrading public transportation system, others agree with exploring an innovation for clean energy cars. I tend to think that it will be a great advance for governments to invest in public transports aspect.
It cannot be denied that produce new generation cars with a big support from high technology is a promise solution. However, this project has several disadvantages besides, which should all be put in consider. First, the initial cost for operation a new car product is high and also, the length of time it requires to spend on researching. Furthermore, changing the customer’s mind has always been a daunting task, not just with buying vehicles.
On the other hand, public transports may not require much investment from the government. It will play a key role in the reduction of fuel supply, since it becomes mainstream in traffic. Besides, it also decreases the needs for vast car park. Nevertheless, urban transportation service still exists several negative effects. One of them is the time-consuming problem. The goal of any types of public transports is to carry as high load of human as possible. Somehow, in some stops, many people are late for their scheduled plan due to the lack of trains. Another minus point for public transports is its non-flexibility. Specifically, it would be hard for tourists to enjoy their explorations because of jumping too much series of train. Governments should pay more attentions to reorganize the public stops to be more affordable.
In short, public transports tend to be more promise than private vehicles, due to those conveniences mentioned above.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 316, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'spending'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'require' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: spending
...nd also, the length of time it requires to spend on researching. Furthermore, changing t...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 717, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...eir explorations because of jumping too much series of train. Governments should pay...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, while, in short, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 10.4138276553 10% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 41.998997996 105% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1572.0 1615.20841683 97% => OK
No of words: 304.0 315.596192385 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17105263158 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17559525986 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98109811703 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 176.041082164 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.625 0.561755894193 111% => 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: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.3708500946 49.4020404114 55% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 82.7368421053 106.682146367 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.0 20.7667163134 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.26315789474 7.06120827912 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.241609493657 0.244688304435 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0663138208005 0.084324248473 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0462555216612 0.0667982634062 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133847793451 0.151304729494 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0612036329904 0.056905535591 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 13.0946893788 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 50.2224549098 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.3001002004 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.41 12.4159519038 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.58950901804 104% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 78.4519038076 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.