Transportation has been one of the most important necessities of human. They have tried to utilize animals and machines to meet this demand during the past millennia. Some people hold the view that car, as an important contemporary vehicle of transportation system, will utterly substitute with other vehicles. Others believe that the existence of car will proceed, but the number of them will become fewer. From my perspective the reign of cars will be weakened, albeit they will not become completely extinct. To support this statement two reasons are presented as follows:
First, our necessities will alter. Therefore, our solutions will also modify, accordingly. The invention of new alluring vehicles with a higher performance is not beyond the realm of possibility. More environmental friendly vehicles are now in the limelight. For instance, some disseminated news show that the trend is to substitute the contemporary cars with the ones they will not consume fossil energy supplies. There is also no constraint to preserve the physical shape of the cars. In twenty years ahead, there will be different vehicles than today's ones. It will be ridiculous for the posterity using a car with more than one thousand of weight to transport a typical individual whose weight is just 80 kilograms. The disparity between today's and future's cars will be underlined the difference between today’s and future's needs.
Second, other transportation vehicles have been also spotlighted during last years ago. For example, train has been an unrelenting rival for car. Train, alike other existent vehicles, has pros and cons. But advantages of this railroad vehicle have made it more and more popular in many societies. Planes and ships are other inexorable opponents for cars. All I know is that there will be a variety of vehicles in the twenty years ahead. The posterity will have more fascinating options to choose than we have today. I prophesy that although cars will not become extinct, the number of them will be less than there are today.
To sum up, according to our future needs and incredible growth of technology, future vehicles will be quite different and more alluring than what we have today. What are called “cars” today will be modified to a large extent that we may be entitled not to call them “cars”; it will even be a misnomer. All in all, the number of cars, in today’s sense, will be on the decrease.
|2019-11-19||rathoreLS||75||Read full essay|
|2019-09-20||comando||61||Read full essay|
|2018-09-11||Harish Chhatija||66||Read full essay|
|2018-08-16||mike818||70||Read full essay|
|2018-07-21||lanxinhh||70||Read full essay|
- TPO-34 - Integrated Writing Task A huge marine mammal known as Steller’s sea cow once lived in the waters around Bering Island off the coast of Siberia. It was described in 1741 by Georg W. Steller, a naturalist who was among the first Europeans to see 3
- TPO-16 - Independent Writing Task Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The best way to travel is in a group led by a tour guide. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.66
- TPO-43 - Independent Writing Task Imagine that you are in a classroom or a meeting. The teacher or the meeting leader says something incorrect In your opinion, which of the following is the best thing to do?-Interrupt and correct the mistake right away-Wa76
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement.In twenty years there will be fewer cars in use than there are today.70
- TPO-35 - Integrated Writing Task3
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, first, if, may, second, so, therefore, for example, for instance, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 15.1003584229 159% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 9.8082437276 204% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.0286738351 63% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 43.0788530466 63% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 52.1666666667 86% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.0752688172 111% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2050.0 1977.66487455 104% => OK
No of words: 401.0 407.700716846 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11221945137 4.8611393121 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47492842339 4.48103885553 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87979721634 2.67179642975 108% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 212.727598566 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511221945137 0.524837075471 97% => OK
syllable_count: 645.3 618.680645161 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.6003584229 121% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.1344086022 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.8801180635 48.9658058833 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.0 100.406767564 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.04 20.6045352989 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.96 5.45110844103 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 11.8709677419 101% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.88709677419 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.319675758451 0.236089414692 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0933173276879 0.076458572812 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0838422846255 0.0737576698707 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.209733784255 0.150856017488 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0409369807332 0.0645574589148 63% => OK
automated_readability_index: 10.7 11.7677419355 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 58.1214874552 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.1575268817 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.06 10.9000537634 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.01818996416 104% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 86.8835125448 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.002688172 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.0537634409 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => 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: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.