Highways or public transportation?
In the modern era, the responsibility of governments such as the development of public transportation and roads has raised a lot of debate among academicians. Some people hold the view that the government should give priority to the improvement of highways since wealthier people, who are responsible for paying the largest part of the government tax, would prefer to drive their own cars rather than traveling by crowded public transportation. However, others may take the opposite viewpoint and believe that improving public vehicles would fairly benefit all people in society, whether they are rich or not. I personally favor the latter option over the former one. In the following paragraphs, I will elaborate on my viewpoint through some notable reasons.
My first reason is that although prosperous people would rather use private cars, the masses are usually traveling by public transportation, which is both more economical and more convenient for them. From my point of view, the government should primarily respect the rights and wishes of the majority of people rather than just those well-off. Focusing on the development of highways and leaving public buses and trains contradicts the principles of equality in society and can make people dissatisfied.
The second reason is that public means of transportation use fewer fossil fuels, and this feature can lead to a cleaner and healthier environment. If the government invests heavily in the development of public vehicles, fewer amounts of harmful gases, like CO2, SO2, and NOx, will be released into the atmosphere, which guarantees a sustainable and green future for the next generations. Toxic exhaust fumes can actually threaten human health and are the main cause of a large number of diseases and ailments, such as heart attack, headache, and a variety of cancers. In this regard, not only does spending government funding on public transportation lead to a remarkable decline in the consumption of fossil fuels, but also can help us live longer and remain safe from a wide range of diseases. Nowadays, in fact, fossil fuels are highly regarded as extremely valuable resources of raw materials that can be used for more useful purposes, like petrochemical production, rather than being simply burned to release energy.
Lastly, investing in public vehicles can dramatically reduce traffic problems in metropolises since they can transport the greatest capacity of passengers compared to private cars. Official statistics have revealed that most of the cars moving along the highways and roads in large cities are only occupied by their drivers and carry no passengers with them, which means when people are freely allowed to run their cars, we should anticipate traffic congestion along the key highways, especially during commuting hours, even in a city with large road infrastructures. That's why I think encouraging the use of private cars can cause us many avoidable problems.
To sum up, based on the aforementioned arguments, there are a myriad of reasons that convince me to support the opinion that it is wiser for governments to invest heavily in public transportation instead of developing roads. Some of the reasons, such as the necessity of meeting most people's requirements, reaching a green and healthier environment, avoiding diseases and sickness, and preventing traffic problems, are mentioned above. However, that was like a story in a nutshell. Actually, there are some other reasons and examples challenging the claim, which are not mentioned above. All in all, I firmly believe that improving public transportation can greatly help us pursue a sustainable and clean future.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 470, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
... human health and are the main cause of a large number of diseases and ailments, such as heart at...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 568, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: That's
...a city with large road infrastructures. Thats why I think encouraging the use of priv...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 63, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'myriads'?
Suggestion: myriads
...e aforementioned arguments, there are a myriad of reasons that convince me to support ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 225, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: Some
...sportation instead of developing roads. Some of the reasons, such as the necessity of meeti...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, lastly, may, second, so, well, i think, in fact, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 15.1003584229 126% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 9.8082437276 184% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 13.8261648746 174% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.0286738351 145% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 43.0788530466 77% => OK
Preposition: 79.0 52.1666666667 151% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 8.0752688172 260% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3090.0 1977.66487455 156% => OK
No of words: 580.0 407.700716846 142% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.3275862069 4.8611393121 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90746259869 4.48103885553 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95136962099 2.67179642975 110% => OK
Unique words: 316.0 212.727598566 149% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544827586207 0.524837075471 104% => OK
syllable_count: 954.9 618.680645161 154% => 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: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.86738351254 268% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.94265232975 162% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6003584229 102% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 20.1344086022 134% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 77.2282596051 48.9658058833 158% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.142857143 100.406767564 147% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.619047619 20.6045352989 134% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.14285714286 5.45110844103 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 11.8709677419 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88709677419 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.269256345234 0.236089414692 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.074662831198 0.076458572812 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0766119648475 0.0737576698707 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149472745386 0.150856017488 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0296860372929 0.0645574589148 46% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 11.7677419355 149% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 58.1214874552 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 10.1575268817 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.93 10.9000537634 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.49 8.01818996416 118% => OK
difficult_words: 166.0 86.8835125448 191% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.002688172 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.0537634409 127% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.247311828 137% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.