Q5. 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 that the money should be spent on improving existing public transport. Discuss both these views and give your opinion.
Recently, the question of how to spend public money has become the subject of heated debate. Some people assert that improving current public transport should take precedence over building a new railway system for bullet trains, while others argue otherwise. Personally, I wholeheartedly agree with the former stance. In the following essay, both views will be discussed before a conclusion is reached with my opinion.
On the one hand, those who claim that there are a number of advantages that can be derived from establishing new railway lines for bullet trains do so for several reasons. Proponents of this argument insist that bullet trains could facilitate the nationwide transport of passengers and goods. To be more specific, not only can people with relatives in other parts of the country meet each other with greater ease, but parcels are able to be delivered quickly. In addition, the advent of bullet train lines can contribute to a boom in domestic tourism, which invigorates economic growth.
My opinion, however, is that the benefits of developing local and existing public transport are more significant. Perhaps the most compelling reason is that current public transport plays a vital role in individuals' daily life considering that a myriad of citizens are using it on a regular basis in order to commute to and from work or studies. Thus, ameliorating existing public transport systems makes it possible for the masses to have an improved standard of living. Furthermore, an astronomical sum of money is required to set up facilities related to bullet trains, compared to enhancing current public transport, which places a heavy financial burden on the governments. To exemplify, one recent study conducted by the government of China has demonstrated that the amount of money allocated to erect bullet train systems is predicted three times higher than updating current public transport. In light of the above, I find these more persuasive.
In conclusion, it is undeniable that there are a variety of opinions about this topic. However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, I fully support the view that reforming existing public transport should be a priority for the reasons discussed above.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 127, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a careful manner" with adverb for "careful"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, I fully support the view that reformin...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, so, thus, while, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 24.0651302605 96% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 41.998997996 131% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1881.0 1615.20841683 116% => OK
No of words: 358.0 315.596192385 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25418994413 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34981470047 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80640082385 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 176.041082164 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59217877095 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 592.2 506.74238477 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.482729397 49.4020404114 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.5625 106.682146367 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.375 20.7667163134 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.625 7.06120827912 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.312379981132 0.244688304435 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0863125005065 0.084324248473 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0627478766536 0.0667982634062 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.177372902401 0.151304729494 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0395135567381 0.056905535591 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.0946893788 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.47 12.4159519038 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.49 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 78.4519038076 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.