Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is more important for governments to spend money to improve Internet access than to improve public transportation.
How does the governmental financial funding for public transportation more influence than supporting Internet server to advance a society even the consequences are not directly visible, such as high Internet speed and a convenient way of searching information? The effectiveness of the well-developed transportation system, in fact, would not only accelerate economic development and strengthen culture communications. It is fair to say that the expenditure on public transportation would be a profitable investment for whatever individuals and communities. In other words, it would have immediate advantages to each corner of society instead of producing a limited outcome as Internet serves do. There are two reasons written down below.
To start with, it would broaden the range of commercial transactions and provide elevated working positions, further boosting the society toward more wealthy. In early 2018, Oxford University published an investigation about the association between the scale of public transportation and the index of economic development, based on the analysis of the Japanese railroad system which is also called JR. It indicated the fact that a city which has a more significant amount of funds to improve public transportations result in the higher rates of economic growth. One of the notable cases mentioned in the investigation is the comparison between the modern capital Tokyo and the ancient capital Kyoto, and both cities are the central transfer station on JR line. The different scale of the public traffic system, however, cause opposite economic results. Tokyo, one of the global commercial centres with thirteen lines covering the entire city from the suburb to the city centre, it attracts many investors to establish their company there and provide a vast amount of working positions in the same breath. Kyoto, in contrast, only with two metro line, it is no surprise, therefore, that its annual economic aggregate is lower than Tokyo. Empty City effect, a well-known social phenomenon in Japan, as the result by the lack of traffic system development that nearly all labour forces gather in Tokyo but merely few youths work in the surrounding cities (like Yokohama and Yokosuka) and Kyoto also, which is the main factor to weaken and barricade the economic growth of those cities. It is no astonishing that such vast differentiate consequences caused by the level of public transportation development. During the first industrial revolution, the first underground metro line was constructed in London which had supplied many working and investment opportunities and the metro line transported labour forces to shuttle between different areas that at some extent had encouraged the economic growth. Some of the have-nots who profited by the new metro system, hence, left the slum and had become the middle class. So, sporting the funds to advance public transportation is a brilliant decision for governments and would not cause any harm.
Furthermore, even the development of science and technology has come to penetrate all aspects of individuals’ life and develop economic growth. It does still no make sense for governments to waste an enormous amount of money to establish various equipment. Moreover, its sequence amount of economic benefit compares with public traffic system is quite small. It is apparent worthless for governments.
As a sum up, for government to sustainably develop a society, funding to improve public transportation is more vital than sponsoring Internet access. Therefore, I approve the agreement that governments should spend more money on the transportation system instead of Internet entrance.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 744, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ere are two reasons written down below. To start with, it would broaden the rang...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1595, Rule ID: IT_IS_NO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'not' or 'now'?
Suggestion: not; now
... economic growth of those cities. It is no astonishing that such vast differentiat...
^^
Line 3, column 1829, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun working seems to be countable; consider using: 'many workings'.
Suggestion: many workings
...onstructed in London which had supplied many working and investment opportunities and the me...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1916, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'shuttling'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'force' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: shuttling
...he metro line transported labour forces to shuttle between different areas that at some ex...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 2008, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: Some
...nt had encouraged the economic growth. Some of the have-nots who profited by the new metro...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 2249, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...vernments and would not cause any harm. Furthermore, even the development of sci...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, moreover, so, still, then, therefore, well, in contrast, in fact, such as, in other words, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 15.1003584229 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 9.8082437276 61% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 13.8261648746 130% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 43.0788530466 49% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 52.1666666667 140% => OK
Nominalization: 30.0 8.0752688172 372% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3115.0 1977.66487455 158% => OK
No of words: 567.0 407.700716846 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.49382716049 4.8611393121 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87972968509 4.48103885553 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09895865668 2.67179642975 116% => OK
Unique words: 296.0 212.727598566 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522045855379 0.524837075471 99% => OK
syllable_count: 981.9 618.680645161 159% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 9.59856630824 125% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.6003584229 112% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.1344086022 119% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.6548174671 48.9658058833 150% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.434782609 100.406767564 135% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.652173913 20.6045352989 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.73913043478 5.45110844103 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.5376344086 108% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 11.8709677419 126% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => 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: 0.191386061816 0.236089414692 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0605715112469 0.076458572812 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0713775433826 0.0737576698707 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158997815621 0.150856017488 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102870774895 0.0645574589148 159% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 11.7677419355 143% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 58.1214874552 67% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 10.1575268817 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.86 10.9000537634 136% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.48 8.01818996416 118% => OK
difficult_words: 167.0 86.8835125448 192% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 10.002688172 170% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.0537634409 115% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.247311828 166% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.