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 establishing new railway lines 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 erecting new bullet train lines do so for several reasons. Proponents of this argument insist that railway systems for bullet trains could facilitate the nationwide transport of goods and people. 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 new railway lines for bullet trains can lead to a boom in domestic tourism, which can stimulate economic growth.
My opinion, however, is that the benefits of ameliorating existing public transport systems are more crucial. Perhaps the most compelling reason is that local public transport plays a vital role in individuals’ daily life considering that a myriad of citizens make use of it on a regular basis in order to commute to and from work. Thus, upgrading current public transport enables the masses to have an improved standard of living. Furthermore, an astronomical sum of money is required to build bullet train lines, which places a heavy financial burden on the public. As an illustration, according to a study conducted by the government of China, the amount of money dedicated to setting up bullet train systems is predicted 5 times higher than reforming 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 enhancing existing public transport should be a priority for the reasons discussed above.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 835, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he above, I find these more persuasive. In conclusion, it is undeniable that the...
^^^^^^
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 enhancin...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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 : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 10.4138276553 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 41.998997996 129% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1789.0 1615.20841683 111% => OK
No of words: 347.0 315.596192385 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15561959654 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75272411526 2.80592935109 98% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.590778097983 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 560.7 506.74238477 111% => 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: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => 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: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.728681236 49.4020404114 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.8125 106.682146367 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6875 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.625 7.06120827912 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.325644675171 0.244688304435 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.091170368834 0.084324248473 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0636988249853 0.0667982634062 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.183548230526 0.151304729494 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.048208058303 0.056905535591 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.0946893788 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 50.2224549098 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.4159519038 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 78.4519038076 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => 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.