Some people believe government can spend money on building train and subway lines to reduce traffic congestion. Others think that building wider roads are the better way to reduce traffic congestion. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Traffic congestion is a controversial issue which has gained a great deal of attention, especially from mass media due to its detrimental impact on humanity. There has been a growing belief that utilizing government budget for constructing railway and subway transportation is an optimal solution, whereas others think that widen roads system is a better way to reduce traffic jam. In my perspective, both views has its specific advantage that need taking into consideration.
On the one hand, it is suggested that a huge decrease in traffic-related problems result from the development of railways and tramlines. Firstly, a huge number of citizens can be cut down from the road, as they are provided with a wide variety of choices in methods of travelling. Hence, residents are no longer at the mercy of private means of transports and willing to opt for mass transit, which leads to less bustling roads. For example, a modern railways recently built in Bien Hoa city has attracted local publicity since people flock to this public transport and less motorcycles are seen on busy highways. Furthermore, the available roads are considered adequate enough to meet the needs of those who travel by other means, which strikes a balance and saves government’s budget as well.
On the other hand, opponents claim that spending money on constructing more spacious road is a better alternative to approach traffic jams. The main reason lies in individuals’ convenience, since there is no doubt that people prefer to utilize their own cars, bikes and motorcycles out of interests. For instance, children have a tendency to go to school on foot, rather than taking a long route to reach station when their schools are within walking distance from home. The same situation is applied for adults and employees, as long as their working and studying place is not too far a way. In addition, it is undeniable that most residents opted for flexibility due to the fact that they can effortlessly manage their time on widened streets, especially when it comes to dropping by convenience store in a hurry.
In conclusion, both solutions possess a certain benefits that should be carefully deliberated. In my opinion, taking advantage of creating new railway/subway lines are likely to bring about a better consequence, as not only did it helps us save national budgets, but it also ameliorates the environmental controversy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 409, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun bustling is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...to opt for mass transit, which leads to less bustling roads. For example, a modern r...
^^^^
Line 3, column 452, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'railway'?
Suggestion: railway
...s bustling roads. For example, a modern railways recently built in Bien Hoa city has att...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 571, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun motorcycles is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...ople flock to this public transport and less motorcycles are seen on busy highways. ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 96, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...s that should be carefully deliberated. In my opinion, taking advantage of creatin...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, so, well, whereas, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, no doubt, in my opinion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 7.30460921844 205% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 27.0 24.0651302605 112% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 41.998997996 129% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2041.0 1615.20841683 126% => OK
No of words: 394.0 315.596192385 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18020304569 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45527027702 4.20363070211 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05549288071 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 176.041082164 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.626903553299 0.561755894193 112% => OK
syllable_count: 625.5 506.74238477 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 20.2975951904 128% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 40.680871836 49.4020404114 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.066666667 106.682146367 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.2666666667 20.7667163134 126% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.1333333333 7.06120827912 158% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.01903807615 80% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.67935871743 150% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => 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: 0.180992690615 0.244688304435 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0539201305643 0.084324248473 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0607870234071 0.0667982634062 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105159031091 0.151304729494 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0523294448859 0.056905535591 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 13.0946893788 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 50.2224549098 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.3001002004 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.06 12.4159519038 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.66 8.58950901804 112% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 78.4519038076 150% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.1190380762 123% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => 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.