It is more important for the government to spend money on improving internet access than on public transportation.
We are living in a skeptical era, but although some faiths in which our forefathers fervently believed have weakened, the belief that Internet plays an extremely important role in our society has never changed. So, as long as the issue that whether government’s budget should focus on Internet access improvement is involved, many citizens tend to agree with that. However, I, with more discretion, insist that we can ill afford to take this matter once for all since areas with different economic status should be taken into account.
Without doubt, by no means should we neglect the fact that in some cases improving internet access enables people to collect different sources more conveniently, especially when it comes to advanced cities. Most of those cities are well-developed in transportation, medical and health care system and people living there enjoy a physically satisfactory life. So, little utility will entail if more money is spent on constructing better transiting system according to Utility Theory in economics. However, metropolis citizens are likely to put more attention to improving themselves by taking online courses or broaden their horizons by viewing news across the world. Therefore, only by providing them with better websites, can citizens with such demand be satisfied, which eventually increase welfare of the whole society. Hangzhou, one of the wealthiest cities in China, serves a good example to the point. Since ten years ago, the local government has launched a program with the aim to provide more stable Internet service with higher speed. According to a survey which was been done last year, the native citizens admitted that they had better resources for self-improvement and felt more easy to fulfill their demand.
To my knowledge, despite the truth that offering more various and stable online resources benefit more than improving public transportation, it is irrational to take it for granted particularly for rural areas. Native villagers there rarely have advanced education and most probably have no idea what Internet is. They depend mainly on farming and live from hand to mouth. Sadly, they suffer from limited resources and bounded income because poor transportation systems eliminate trade opportunities with the outside world. However, if highways were built, local agricultural products could be traded to urban areas with higher prices, which would definitely accumulate more wealth for the whole area. Liangnong, a rural mountain village which I visited last year, vividly draws to this point. Before roads were built in the village, people there were extremely poor and led an almost primitive life. Luckily, thanks to government policy to improve public transportation there, now they directly benefit from selling commodity in higher price and buying products in lower price, i.e. comparative advantages. What is more, hundreds of tourists like me come to go sightseeing there, which brings a large fortune for this beautiful town.
For the aforementioned analyses, we can safely come to the conclusion that the statement is biased. For well-developed areas, Internet access deserves more money from government. However, taking rural places into consideration, it can be easily seen that the statement is over-generalized.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1074, Rule ID: WAS_BEEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'was' or 'has been'?
Suggestion: was; has been
...gher speed. According to a survey which was been done last year, the native citizens adm...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, so, therefore, well, in some cases, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 15.1003584229 126% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 9.8082437276 102% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 13.8261648746 80% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.0286738351 145% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 43.0788530466 79% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 52.1666666667 125% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.0752688172 198% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2795.0 1977.66487455 141% => OK
No of words: 511.0 407.700716846 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.46966731898 4.8611393121 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75450408675 4.48103885553 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86265987463 2.67179642975 107% => OK
Unique words: 302.0 212.727598566 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.590998043053 0.524837075471 113% => OK
syllable_count: 882.0 618.680645161 143% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.94265232975 162% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.6003584229 112% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.3243757266 48.9658058833 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.52173913 100.406767564 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2173913043 20.6045352989 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.86956521739 5.45110844103 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 11.8709677419 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => 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: 0.301125977479 0.236089414692 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0731888763581 0.076458572812 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0787331033866 0.0737576698707 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175699796331 0.150856017488 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.016130757644 0.0645574589148 25% => 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: 15.4 11.7677419355 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 58.1214874552 70% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.1575268817 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 10.9000537634 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.46 8.01818996416 118% => OK
difficult_words: 153.0 86.8835125448 176% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.002688172 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.247311828 137% => 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: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.