whether the government shpoud spend more money to improve internet access or public transportation
From a general standpoint, these days, governments possess a huge investment which is in order to provide a better and more convenient life for citizens. Governments choices surrounds this issue that this money should be spent on which projects, or which projects are prior to others are very important because they relatively determine the quality of life in a country. While some people hold the view that this budget should be spent to improve internet access, I am personally inclined to believe that improvement of public transportation is prior to internet access. In what follows, I will try to aptly pinpoint the most outstanding reasons to advocate my view point.
The first reason leading credence to the argument is that spending more money on public transportation can bring about a great decline in air pollution. To clarify, air pollution is one of the most important environmental issues of the 21st century. As we all are aware, it has concerned the environmental opponents more than ever and so many campaigns have been established in order to save the earth. In this regard, the majority of the fuel that cars consume is fossil fuel. The co2 released as a result of burning fuel such as gasoline is one of the greenhouse gases that preserve the heat in the atmosphere. Moreover, this gas pollutes the air so much and provide a great health risk for people. improving transportation can encourage people to leave their personal vehicles behind and thereupon less co2 is released. Take my city as an example, it has a poor public transportation in holidays and people use their cars in these days more than other days. As a result, everyone can obviously feel that how weather is more polluted in Friday than other days of the week.
Secondly, if governments pay more attention to public transportation they can provide easier life for citizens as they have better access to different parts of the city by a bus for example. In fact, if these vehicles do not cover all parts of the city people would not use them because they are only available in only some parts of their rout and the other part would be left without any vehicle. A personal experience of mine may provide sufficient proof to my claim. As a matter of fact, when I was attending university, I did not have a car, consequently I was imposed to use the public transportation. Because it did not cover all the paths to my university it was hard for me to get access to my university, then even the idea of going to university bothered me so much every day.
In conclusion, bearing the foregoing points and examples in mind, I am of the opinion that the government should allocates a significant part of the budget to improve buses and subways. This is not only because it can have a notable impact on the air pollution, but also it provides more convenience for citizens
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 702, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Improving
...provide a great health risk for people. improving transportation can encourage people to ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 115, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[2]
Message: The verb 'should' requires the base form of the verb: 'allocate'
Suggestion: allocate
... the opinion that the government should allocates a significant part of the budget to imp...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, while, for example, in conclusion, in fact, such as, as a matter of fact, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 15.1003584229 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 9.8082437276 122% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 43.0788530466 107% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 52.1666666667 111% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 8.0752688172 211% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2373.0 1977.66487455 120% => OK
No of words: 496.0 407.700716846 122% => OK
Chars per words: 4.78427419355 4.8611393121 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71922212354 4.48103885553 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80011799216 2.67179642975 105% => OK
Unique words: 244.0 212.727598566 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.491935483871 0.524837075471 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 757.8 618.680645161 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 9.59856630824 94% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.51792114695 227% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.1344086022 119% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.8991841414 48.9658058833 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.65 100.406767564 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8 20.6045352989 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.2 5.45110844103 150% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
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: 0.242413599509 0.236089414692 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0652646121752 0.076458572812 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0799545331672 0.0737576698707 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142199767432 0.150856017488 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0562134082978 0.0645574589148 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 11.7677419355 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 58.1214874552 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.1575268817 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.74 10.9000537634 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.01818996416 102% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 86.8835125448 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.002688172 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.0537634409 115% => 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: 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.