Some people think an international car-free day is an effective way to reduce air pollution. Others think there are more effective ways to do this. Discuss both sides and give your opinion.
Organising car-free days across the globe are increasingly popular, they continue to be rather controversial because the benefits are hard to quantify exactly. There are arguments on both sides of this very topical debate. While people claim that these campaigns may diminish the atmospheric pollution, I contend that there are more other valid methods to preserve the atmosphere. The following essay will expound upon both perspectives in addition to supporting my opinion.
Advocates of organising global car-free days argue that it may reduce traffic emissions. Most of the vehicles have consumed on fossil fuel, a non-renewable resource, and emitted a high amount of air contaminants and carbon dioxide which contribute to climate change and global warming. Furthermore, car-free days also incentivized participants to utilize the alternative modes of transport like walking and cycling. For example, not only the number of bicyclists support considerably to the reduction of traffic released, but they could improve mental and physical well-being. Finally, raising the awareness about the absence of cars among people from all over the world would be easier spread through accessible the car-free campaign.
However, this event lasts a few days without cars out of 365 days per year that might help cut down as little as the annual amount of traffic fumes. There is probably the most another effective solution that is to limit the number of vehicles allowed. For instance, Singapore is to cap these quantities on its streets and harder to approval from the government to buy new cars. Secondly, the government might fund itself through high taxes from parking users. This amount of money should be invested to improve public infrastructure capacity which incentive locals to the lack of private transport and switch to public transportation. Another measure is levying a tax on carbon usage in all areas, including transport and industrial production. This measure has been adopted in several countries and has proven its curtailment of emissions in all fields.
To sum up, I believe that organizing car-free days may produce little effect on protecting the atmosphere. Other sustainable solutions, namely limiting the number of private transport, increasing parking fee and taxing all industries on carbon usage.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, well, while, for example, for instance, in addition, to sum up
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 : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 41.998997996 126% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1971.0 1615.20841683 122% => OK
No of words: 360.0 315.596192385 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.475 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35587717469 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86285141247 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 176.041082164 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.611111111111 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 609.3 506.74238477 120% => 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: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.2543229115 49.4020404114 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.5 106.682146367 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 20.7667163134 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5 7.06120827912 106% => 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 : 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: 0.180078653491 0.244688304435 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0528911771505 0.084324248473 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.042962143043 0.0667982634062 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111234075805 0.151304729494 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0346946014449 0.056905535591 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.0946893788 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 50.2224549098 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.4159519038 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.98 8.58950901804 116% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 78.4519038076 156% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => 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.