Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? In twenty years there will be fewer cars in use than there are today. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
A great deal of attention is attracted to the future problem of human societies during this century dealing with the general transport standards like continuing with the current issue of having many cars or some other consideration will be taken into account. There are a number of people who subscribe to the theory that cars start to disappear in future, however, others disagree. In my own perspective, I do believe that future society will have fewer cars because of two main reasons which are elaborated in the following paragraphs.
First of all, the population of all human being is going to grow faster than any time before which will mainly result in some unfavorable consequences like bigger cities, higher speed of life and etc. In other words, the huge number of people who will be born in future will definitely need more comfort like personal cars and other vehicles, therefore, growing number of cars will lead to huge traffic jams and more need of parking spaces which both of them are in contrast with the nature of growing technology and the demand of high speed of life. Our present situation is a compelling reason for what is going to be happed in future in lower scale. Nowadays we have terrible traffic problems in big cities, as a result, authorities have established new rules which limit the use of cars and motorcycles in particular area of the city. I think this kind of rules will be more serious in future and the forbidden areas will be enlarged more and more in order to control the numerous number of cars. Consequently, people try to find another vehicle like bicycles to use because the function of cars will be more limited in some rural areas.
Secondly, there will be a time in our future that these huge amounts of produced gases will harm all the individuals and make the life too intolerable. In fact, the environmental problems that we have today maybe become the chief place of debate in most international associations and finally lead to restricting the use of personal cars. Therefore, some other sorts of transport systems like the small individual machine should be invented to help the human being to transport from the sky. The fiction movies that are shown today can be perfect imagine of our future planet. I think that some other kind of transport systems will be invented and the tax of using cars will grow drastically which result in the uselessness of using cars. As a result, it is not logical for future people to use these types of cars that we have today.
In sum, above from aforementioned explanation, it is obvious that I do believe the number of cars will be reduced surprisingly. This is just because of the growing population which brings us terrible traffic jams and also environmental problems that make the life harder for ordinary people. That's why I think there must be another way to the transport issues of today.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 347, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...the theory that cars start to disappear in future, however, others disagree. In my own pe...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 193, Rule ID: AND_ETC[1]
Message: Use simply 'etc.'.
Suggestion: etc.
...ike bigger cities, higher speed of life and etc. In other words, the huge number of peop...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 293, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: That's
...ke the life harder for ordinary people. Thats why I think there must be another way t...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, i think, in contrast, in fact, in particular, kind of, as a result, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 15.1003584229 166% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 9.8082437276 194% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 13.8261648746 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.0286738351 154% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 43.0788530466 70% => OK
Preposition: 79.0 52.1666666667 151% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.0752688172 99% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2399.0 1977.66487455 121% => OK
No of words: 500.0 407.700716846 123% => OK
Chars per words: 4.798 4.8611393121 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72870804502 4.48103885553 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5979030005 2.67179642975 97% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 212.727598566 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.462 0.524837075471 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 774.0 618.680645161 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 20.1344086022 134% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 63.2058414631 48.9658058833 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.277777778 100.406767564 133% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.7777777778 20.6045352989 135% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.1666666667 5.45110844103 187% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.85842293907 207% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.237313819561 0.236089414692 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0865434986378 0.076458572812 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0468823183846 0.0737576698707 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153940520243 0.150856017488 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0353246252825 0.0645574589148 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 11.7677419355 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 58.1214874552 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 10.1575268817 124% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.86 10.9000537634 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.01818996416 105% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 86.8835125448 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.002688172 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.0537634409 127% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.247311828 127% => 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.