Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree? What other measures do you think might be effective?
It is sometimes argued that the problems related to traffic congestion and defilement can be figured out by multiplying cost of fuels. Personally, I disagree with this idea that higher costs could solve the problems, and I do believe that several steps can be taken to tackle these problems.
I believe that enhancing petroleum prices cannot solely be efficient for traffic jam and environmental pollution. The fact of the matter, raising the costs by governments just put an unprecedented strain on people as well as creates inflation issues. For example, the standard of living mainly for lower-income strata can be effected by performing this strategy even if they would come to use public transportation. It is often the case that, infrastructure of many cities are often very poor. Then, using private cars inexorably would be occurred by people. As a result, this scheme not only would be the remedy of this dilemma, but also bring out some financial difficulties for citizenships.
There are a number of potential solutions that can be addressed to this problems. Firstly, the more educated people are, the more advantageous it is for the environment. I think it could be beneficial to educate and aware the public about our environmental obstacles. For example, governments and well-known people by employing mass transit or even riding a bike can promote this manner. Secondly, daily commuting is not always necessary because people can do their routines such as online work, distance learning and shopping facilities vie internet from home. Finally, we will be having clean air as long as governments attend to a viable alternatives to petrol-driven cars. So getting rid of pollution is definitely achievable.
In conclusion, my view is that enhancement of oil payments cannot be an excellent approach to reduce the traffic and contamination challenges and I believe that there are various keys to overcome these difficulties.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 68, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...tial solutions that can be addressed to this problems. Firstly, the more educated pe...
^^^^
Line 5, column 642, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'alternative'?
Suggestion: alternative
... long as governments attend to a viable alternatives to petrol-driven cars. So getting rid o...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 15, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...efinitely achievable. In conclusion, my view is that enhancement of oil payme...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, then, well, for example, i think, in conclusion, such as, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 13.1623246493 152% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 7.85571142285 178% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 24.0651302605 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 41.998997996 69% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1637.0 1615.20841683 101% => OK
No of words: 311.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26366559486 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19942759058 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06580131875 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 176.041082164 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.623794212219 0.561755894193 111% => OK
syllable_count: 515.7 506.74238477 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => 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: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.3031747479 49.4020404114 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.3125 106.682146367 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4375 20.7667163134 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.9375 7.06120827912 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => 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: 0.134728445042 0.244688304435 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0427312606455 0.084324248473 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0390782809194 0.0667982634062 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0834886446789 0.151304729494 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0398023114998 0.056905535591 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 13.0946893788 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.4159519038 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.3 8.58950901804 108% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 78.4519038076 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.