It is obvious that governments make every effort to allocate budgets to road structures. However, it seems to me that rail facilities are the main priority for nations, and I will explain the reasons here.
Firstly, as being among high-capacity public transport, trains are most cost-effective option for those who want to travel a remote destination. This means a train ticket is less costly than providing fossil fuel such as petrol for a privet car to arrive the same place. The secondary reason is regarding traffic congestion in roads due to a large number of autos driving on highways. Using train technology results in reducing bottlenecks as well as traffic jams in roads, and time-consuming for those who choose this kind of public transportation. Last but not least, road accidents are a challenging issue for not only governments but also passengers. Supporters of railways believe that the accident risks of traveling by vehicles are less than using railway system. Moreover, authorities should allocate a certain amount of money to deal with the damages of these road disasters. Therefore, governmental administrators are highly recommended to fund and invest for railways infrastructure rather than increasing road space, which is a kind of outdated system.
Of course, it is true that the majority of products are distributed through existing networks, especially where there are no rail facilities. Nevertheless, authorities may better to subsidize public or private companies to develop railways in areas where they suffer from lack of train system.
In conclusion, I would not wish to neglect or underestimate the potential usage of road networks, and it should certainly be accessible as an option for people. However, if we think of all people, governments are suggested to spend part of their budget on the stronger way of public transportation.
- The diagram below shows how geothemal energy is used to produce electricity. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 11
- The Graph below shows average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per person in the United Kindom, Sweden, Italy and Portugal between 1967 and 2007.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 79
- The maps below show the centre of a small town called Islip as it is now, and plans for its development.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 73
- The Graph below shows average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per person in the United Kindom, Sweden, Italy and Portugal between 1967 and 2007.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 84
- The diagram below shows how geothermal energy is used to produce electricity.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 341, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...ding traffic congestion in roads due to a large number of autos driving on highways. Using train ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, second, so, therefore, well, in conclusion, kind of, of course, such as, as well as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 41.998997996 93% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 8.3376753507 48% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1581.0 1615.20841683 98% => OK
No of words: 297.0 315.596192385 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32323232323 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10607109941 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 176.041082164 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.626262626263 0.561755894193 111% => OK
syllable_count: 482.4 506.74238477 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 24.8764292995 49.4020404114 50% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 112.928571429 106.682146367 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2142857143 20.7667163134 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.5 7.06120827912 177% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.139917151497 0.244688304435 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0447651007682 0.084324248473 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0374591739669 0.0667982634062 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0634794276508 0.151304729494 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0479826753947 0.056905535591 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.0946893788 108% => 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: 13.58 12.4159519038 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.14 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 78.4519038076 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => 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.