Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems. To what extent do you agree and disagree ? What other measures do you think might be effective ?
Nowadays, traffic and pollution are growing problems in most countries over the world. Personally, I disagree with the idea that higher petrol prices could solve these problems, and I believe that various other measures would be more effective.
On the one hand, there are many reasons why increasing the price of petrol is the most effective way to deal with the traffic and pollution problems. First, increasing the price of petrol make people will change their priority of choosing a vehicle, which means that they will use a vehicle saving your income in purchasing any fuel. For instance, some people will choose the kind of vehicle which can save its source. Moreover, with the climb in the price of petrol, it is clear that the number of transportation is declining because every individual has to pay a huge amount of money to recharge their full sources. Therefore, the traffic congestion in most big countries has declined and it can prevent the environment from occurring CO2 emission.
However, there are several solutions to solve traffic congestions and pollution more efficiently than increasing the petrol price. The first is to decrease the number of private cars on the road by improving the public transport system to encourage more individuals to use it. This system can be appropriate for an average person when it not only has more public transport available and make it more punctual but also reduces the price of every ticket. Another measure is to have no traffic zones in the city centers which will reduce both congestion and pollution in urban areas. For instance, the main purpose of pedestrians in every big city is to decline both traffic congestion and pollution in this area.
In short, several factors describe the reason for solving traffic and pollution problems, but an increase the petrol is only one of them. In fact, I would argue that improving the public transport system and opening the pedestrian zones are both more important than petrol’s rise alone.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, moreover, so, therefore, as to, for instance, in fact, in short, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 41.998997996 90% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1678.0 1615.20841683 104% => OK
No of words: 332.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05421686747 5.12529762239 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.2685907696 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58118295428 2.80592935109 92% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 176.041082164 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.524096385542 0.561755894193 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 525.6 506.74238477 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.9532234318 49.4020404114 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.857142857 106.682146367 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7142857143 20.7667163134 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.07142857143 7.06120827912 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
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: 0.201441838089 0.244688304435 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0800286633924 0.084324248473 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0659334872677 0.0667982634062 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141781156945 0.151304729494 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0523227570606 0.056905535591 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.0946893788 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 50.2224549098 96% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 12.4159519038 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.58950901804 97% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 78.4519038076 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.