In twenty year, there will be fewer cars in use than there are today.
It is critically important to control the number of vehicles on the road. The environmental loss that our planet is going through is an urgent concern. Proponents of this argument maintain that the accidents caused by overcrowding of roads make it difficult for adding more cars and trucks on highways. Personally, I believe that it does not matter how many reasons are there in support of reducing the number of cars, it won't lessen. Instead, they would keep on growing to serve the increasing population. I feel this way for two reasons that I will explore in the following essay.
To begin with, the population would reach a whopping 10 billion by the year 2040. Sustaining such a gigantic figure would require an increase in the number of cars on the road. The government might charge the car owners a hefty tax to drive on the road. Nonetheless, the living standards of families across the world has seen a huge jump as more people getting above the poverty lines. Affordability of such taxes would be available to more people than what numbers are today. My personal experience is a compelling illustration of how the cars would keep on increasing. In my society and among my friends, most of the people were not having cars a decade ago. But now, almost all of them own a car and a few have more than one car. These are the people whose living standard improved in the last few years and buying car had been their priority. It happened because car is a symbol of living standard. It signifies an individual's purchasing power and can be a means to flaunt and boast in front of the social group one have.
Furthermore, the problem of pollution and environmental damage can be controlled with the help using clean energy as an alternate. With the advancement in science and technology, the efficiency of extracting green energy is reaching its full potential. Solar and wind energy can be used to generate electricity and then it can later be utilized by electric cars. Electric cars do not spread pollution as they don't burn any petroleum and hence cannot be blamed for spreading pollution. For instance, Tesla is a company that is producing futuristic cars which run on electricity. Earlier electric cars very small in size and having a shape which would seem to be awkward to drive such a car in public. Since the car is a status symbol, people used to avoid buying these cars. Tesla was able to transform the notion of electric cars by designing luxurious cars. In last one year, Tesla sold half a million cars.
In conclusion, I strongly feel that the number of cars would increase in next two decades. This is because the standard of living of people will improve with time and more renewable resources would be used in functioning of cars.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 96, Rule ID: ADVISE_VBG[5]
Message: The verb 'help' is used with infinitive: 'to use' or 'use'.
Suggestion: to use; use
... damage can be controlled with the help using clean energy as an alternate. With the ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 409, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ic cars do not spread pollution as they dont burn any petroleum and hence cannot be ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 605, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: small
...electricity. Earlier electric cars very small in size and having a shape which would seem to ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, hence, if, nonetheless, so, then, for instance, i feel, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 15.1003584229 159% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 9.8082437276 163% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 13.8261648746 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.0286738351 82% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 43.0788530466 72% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 52.1666666667 121% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.0752688172 149% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2272.0 1977.66487455 115% => OK
No of words: 482.0 407.700716846 118% => OK
Chars per words: 4.71369294606 4.8611393121 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68556276237 4.48103885553 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6484863183 2.67179642975 99% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 212.727598566 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522821576763 0.524837075471 100% => OK
syllable_count: 706.5 618.680645161 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 9.59856630824 115% => OK
Article: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.6003584229 136% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.1344086022 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 26.1707501472 48.9658058833 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 81.1428571429 100.406767564 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2142857143 20.6045352989 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.64285714286 5.45110844103 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 11.8709677419 118% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.88709677419 184% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.268800354848 0.236089414692 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0659130440481 0.076458572812 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0485210230323 0.0737576698707 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148851064699 0.150856017488 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0655718749014 0.0645574589148 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.4 11.7677419355 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 58.1214874552 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 10.1575268817 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.74 10.9000537634 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.01818996416 100% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 86.8835125448 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.002688172 80% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.0537634409 88% => 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: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.