In a city it is necessary to close the central areas to private transport.
It is a frequent matter of debate in urban planning whether it is better to close central areas of a city to private transport. Some argue that public transport should be the only means of commuting because it brings advantages such as reducing pollution. In contrast, others claim that private transport is a fundamental pilar in how the city operates and should it be removed the city will not prosper. Although both side of the argument have benefits and drawbacks, I favor blocking private vehicles from circuiting central areas for these reasons.
To start with, I believe that closing the private traffic improves health conditions in the city. Cutting down on private vehicles means less pollution and noise generated. Similarly, this allows for a better use of the city's space, which improves the quality of life of dwellers by allowing parks and bicycle lanes to be built. Drawing from my own experience. In Bogota, the capital city of Colombia, there used to be a problem with traffic jams and respiratories diseases due to pollution. After many collapses of the medical system, it was not until authorities reduced the number of private vehicles in the street and increases the capacity of public transport that citizens noticed a recovery of health and increased happiness. This shows me that the reduction of vehicles owned by third-parties in the central areas of a city can be a huge step-forward in the quality of life of the whole city. As a result, I think that removing these vehicles entirely can bring even more benefits to a city.
A reduction in vehicles, in addition to being better for the public health is better for the environment. It is often argue that the necessary increase in public transport means building more infrastructure that will come with a high cost of natural resources and reserved land. However, this could not be further from the truth. Changing private vehicles with a high efficient public transport system is better in the long run because this allows for a energy-efficient and compact way of moving people, specially in high-volume routes. For example, many developed cities around the world own a metro lane connecting business centers, airports, parks and more. All while consuming less space. This is another reason why I believe that private vehicles should not be allow in center areas of a city.
To conclude, it is my belief that limiting private vehicles in central areas is a better option than relaying on civilian vehicles. Despites the benefits that private vehicles have for their owners, the drawbacks for the city as a whole are much more problematic in every aspect. For me, it is clear that private vehicles should be banned from cities, specially in center areas.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 123, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'vehicles'' or 'vehicle's'?
Suggestion: vehicles'; vehicle's
...ns in the city. Cutting down on private vehicles means less pollution and noise generate...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 453, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...in the long run because this allows for a energy-efficient and compact way of mov...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, similarly, so, third, well, while, as for, for example, i think, in addition, in contrast, such as, as a result, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 15.1003584229 139% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 43.0788530466 84% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 52.1666666667 115% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.0752688172 111% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2286.0 1977.66487455 116% => OK
No of words: 457.0 407.700716846 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00218818381 4.8611393121 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62358717085 4.48103885553 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69643383493 2.67179642975 101% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 212.727598566 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485776805252 0.524837075471 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 723.6 618.680645161 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 9.59856630824 125% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.6003584229 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.0965390336 48.9658058833 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.909090909 100.406767564 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7727272727 20.6045352989 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.31818181818 5.45110844103 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 11.8709677419 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.334441370217 0.236089414692 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0967336541802 0.076458572812 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103432060103 0.0737576698707 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.234344308601 0.150856017488 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.110013254577 0.0645574589148 170% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 11.7677419355 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 58.1214874552 88% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 10.9000537634 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.01818996416 106% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 86.8835125448 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.002688172 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.