Some people believe car should be developed at a smaller size in the future, some think it would be more beneficial for cars to be smaller in the future. Which of the two pathways would you prefer and why?
In a techonologically advanced era, it is considered whether cars should be manipulated at a smaller or a larger size, hence, becoming a controversial topic among many critic groups. As a larger cars could provide a more appropriately conceived improvement and may has the surperior benefit of the doubt, I personally subscribe to a future packed with smaller car brands for several reasons.
Firstly, shrink in size among cars helps establish a more maintainable traffic condition. To be specific, while bigger cars could possibly provide larger internal spacing for users, it also acts as pervention of movement for other participating vehicles on the same road or path way, this has traditionally been over-looked as one of the most obnoxous cause to traffic jam and should not be promoted. In essence, acquiring smaller style cars could be closely equivelented to extending the overall traffic space, leading to more throughoutly distributed traffical flow. Furthermore, smaller car size silmutanously increase the flexibility in mobilizing within certain district, similar to lighter vehicles such as motor bike or bycicle, this has further application in morally excessive situation as transportation of patient or even politician throughout the area without public notice. Consequently, such individuals are elidgable of being transmitted safely and soundfully without risks of getting notified. Overall, minimizing car size has the benefit of exposing more mobile space on roads and allow certain individuals to quickly access their facilities in more pressuring needs.
Secondly, trivializing car size encourages the depletion of over-exploitation of ore deposits and fossil fuels. Specifically, one of the world’s biggest concern regarding environmental and ecological factor is over- harnessment of irrenewable natural resources such as iron, coal, oil,… or just purely unplanned and illegal exploitation of resources that surpass even that of natural recovery. Diminishing car size could most likely solve this problem with ease, as manufacturing smaller cars in the future requires less investment of fundamental materials, so do the need to overly exploit such rare natural resources. Furthermore, combustion engines, the most commonly used car engines in the world, requires substantial space internally to function in a proper level. In essence, reducing car size may popularize alternative car engines that avoid the further tapping of natural energy sources and thereby, encourages the use of more available resources.
The opposing view claim that enlargement of car size is a more beneficial manipulation for the future. Admittedly, progressive maximization of car size satisfy individual’s need of more internal space and may benefit transaction of more heavily stated objects. However, it is undeniable that such benefits are subpar at best and could not have any further implication later on, while having significant drawbacks and ommisions to fulfill. To sum up, while enlarging car size has some benefits up its sleeves, such points are too insignificant in comparison with its negative counter part, hence, propose the argument invalid.
In conclusion, those are the reasons why smaller car size is more beneficial for the future.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 124, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...tion. To be specific, while bigger cars could possibly provide larger internal spacing for use...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 289, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , …
...atural resources such as iron, coal, oil,… or just purely unplanned and illegal ex...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, look, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, while, in conclusion, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 15.1003584229 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 9.8082437276 122% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 13.8261648746 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.0286738351 45% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 43.0788530466 37% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 52.1666666667 121% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 8.0752688172 272% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2787.0 1977.66487455 141% => OK
No of words: 491.0 407.700716846 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.67617107943 4.8611393121 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70728369723 4.48103885553 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19860140914 2.67179642975 120% => OK
Unique words: 280.0 212.727598566 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.570264765784 0.524837075471 109% => OK
syllable_count: 903.6 618.680645161 146% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.51630824373 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.51792114695 142% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => 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: 67.4481053372 48.9658058833 138% => OK
Chars per sentence: 154.833333333 100.406767564 154% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.2777777778 20.6045352989 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.77777777778 5.45110844103 161% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 11.8709677419 118% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88709677419 20% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.322761049101 0.236089414692 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.113936688435 0.076458572812 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0798763707312 0.0737576698707 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.216306875926 0.150856017488 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0785443246503 0.0645574589148 122% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.0 11.7677419355 161% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 27.15 58.1214874552 47% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.10430107527 213% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 10.1575268817 159% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.96 10.9000537634 146% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.54 8.01818996416 131% => OK
difficult_words: 173.0 86.8835125448 199% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.002688172 150% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.0537634409 127% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.247311828 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.