Investment in public transportation has been one of the government's focus since decades ago, when the value of airplanes, railroads and subways are acknowledged among the experts. In the past ten years, Internet is also developing in fast speed, promoting the spread of information and bringing huge convenience to people's life. With this background, there is a hot debate that whether governments should fund Internet access as much as it funds public transportation. Some even contend that spending money on expanding internet coverage is more important than developing public transportation. While I acknowledge the value of investing in the Internet, I believe that public transportation is important as well. They require the government's same amount of focus.
Public transportation and the Internet are both expensive. It is estimated that developing a mature public transportation system, with well-designed roads and qualified vehicles, means a consecutive 20-year investment of $10 billion dollars per year. This long-term and intensive investment can only be realized with the government's help. The same is true for the investment of expanding Internet coverage. A George Mason University study reveals that the annual funding of the European governments in the Internet is $8 billion. This money is spent on educating skilled network workers and purchasing major types of equipment. In this light, it is evident that either improving Internet access or promoting public transportation requires the government's intensive funding.
On the other hand, investment in public transportation and the Internet will eventually prove beneficial. With a sophisticated railway system, residents can take a small trip to the nearby town on vacations; they can even travel to famous places in other parts of the country to do sightseeing. Both activities bring prosperity to the countries' tourism industry, which can ultimately boost a countries' economy and increase governmental revenue. With easy access to the Internet, people can lead a more full-filled life: students can learn more about history by watching documentaries shared on the Internet; people can read International news the moment it is put on the site. With the rapid flow of information, the countries' literacy is surely improved and, as a result, make it more competitive in the context of global competition. In this light, all the intensive investment of the government, either in public transportation or in the Internet, will surely payback.
In short, it is equally important for the government to spend money on public transportation and the Internet, either because that only the government have adequate funding, or that the investments will ultimately benefit the country and the government itself.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 516, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... European governments in the Internet is billion. This money is spent on educatin...
^^
Line 3, column 518, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a billion'.
Suggestion: a billion
...uropean governments in the Internet is billion. This money is spent on educating skill...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 336, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'countries'' or 'country's'?
Suggestion: countries'; country's
...Both activities bring prosperity to the countries tourism industry, which can ultimately ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 393, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'countries'' or 'country's'?
Suggestion: countries'; country's
... industry, which can ultimately boost a countries economy and increase governmental reven...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 718, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'countries'' or 'country's'?
Suggestion: countries'; country's
...With the rapid flow of information, the countries literacy is surely improved and, as a r...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, so, well, while, in short, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 15.1003584229 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 9.8082437276 112% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 13.8261648746 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 43.0788530466 56% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 52.1666666667 98% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 8.0752688172 310% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2357.0 1977.66487455 119% => OK
No of words: 424.0 407.700716846 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.55896226415 4.8611393121 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53775939005 4.48103885553 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20808038714 2.67179642975 120% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 212.727598566 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509433962264 0.524837075471 97% => OK
syllable_count: 722.7 618.680645161 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 9.59856630824 83% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.94265232975 202% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.1209939666 48.9658058833 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.85 100.406767564 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2 20.6045352989 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.35 5.45110844103 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.5376344086 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 11.8709677419 126% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 3.85842293907 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.424207201664 0.236089414692 180% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.127497955205 0.076458572812 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100054458543 0.0737576698707 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.273199780595 0.150856017488 181% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0635303155182 0.0645574589148 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 11.7677419355 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 58.1214874552 72% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.1575268817 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 10.9000537634 137% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.01818996416 110% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 86.8835125448 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.002688172 115% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => 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: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.