Some cities create housing areas by providing taller buildings. Others create housing by building houses on a wider area of land. Which solution is better?
Demographic projections suggest that city dwellers in metropolitan areas will grow exponentially in the upcoming years, which requires some affluent cities to accommodate citizens by construction multistorey buildings. However, other urban areas tend to offer housing expansion to their citizens. From my perspective, both these two initiatives are equally effective in light of the following interpretations.
On the one hand, building skyscrapers to meet the population’s requirements will bring about a plethora of benefits to the government and the public. First and foremost, what the government might take advantage of taller buildings is to address land scarcity stemming from the influx of rural citizens to urban areas. This is because an apartment’s capacity is likely to contain hundreds of citizens, which might ease a land scarcity burden. Additionally, providing taller buildings will provide residents with a precious opportunity to get access to a variety of complex amenities. For instance, skyscrapers these days tend to be equipped with a rooftop swimming pool, gym and supermarket, which aids residents to steer clear of heading out and therefore assists them to save time.
On the other hand, housing expansion also results in an array of considerable advantages to inhabitants. One of the most irrefutable merits is to bring people with a sense of comfort. This is because homeowners on a wider space could immerse themselves in a spacious living room or gardening, which, in turn, creates a comfortable and cosy atmosphere. In tandem with this, what city dwellers might also make use of housing expansion is a sense of security. It is plausible that a house is usually designed with a state-to-the-art anti-robbery system that prevents trespassing for the sake of robbery. As a result, city dwellers whose homes are located in a larger space might feel safety.
In conclusion, it is undeniable that the urban population might grow explosively in the years to come, which demands policymakers to seek a silver bullet to accommodate those city dwellers. From my perspective, constructing skyscrapers is as efficient as building houses on a wider land on account of the described reasons.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, so, therefore, well, for instance, in conclusion, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 41.998997996 138% => 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: 1876.0 1615.20841683 116% => OK
No of words: 346.0 315.596192385 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42196531792 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21399758564 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.57225433526 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 585.9 506.74238477 116% => 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: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.6035981016 49.4020404114 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.25 106.682146367 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.625 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.375 7.06120827912 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
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: 0.313435337946 0.244688304435 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0859802955918 0.084324248473 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0645247559752 0.0667982634062 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169255629575 0.151304729494 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0231393141374 0.056905535591 41% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.0946893788 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.7 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 78.4519038076 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => 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.