Cities are now expanding; the government should make better network for public transport or should build more roads to facilitate car ownership? Agree or Disagree?
Or
Should government build more roads to allow more vehicle owner or improve the network of public transport?
Recently, the phenomenon of expanding cities and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of complex procedures is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and consequently positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that building more roads can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a general standpoint, making better network for public transport by governments can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that merits of crucial issues, as well as ultimate outcomes, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered current policies. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both this common phenomenon and accordingly complicated procedures apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of a public arena, building more roads in cities might increase the consequences of critical needs. Moreover, fundamental aspects of a road constructing project could relate to this reality that the demerits of the roads safety pertain to the public transportation industry. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of creative processes is correlated negatively with vital issues. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of this remarkable phenomenon.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of facilitating car ownership by making more roads far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of this unique phenomenon prove the significance of total outcomes, but also pinpoint thorny issues' potential implications.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, apparently, but, consequently, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 20.9802955665 100% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 31.9359605911 106% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.75862068966 69% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1576.0 1207.87684729 130% => OK
No of words: 276.0 242.827586207 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.71014492754 5.00649968141 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 3.92707691288 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22205563454 2.71678728327 119% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 139.433497537 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.659420289855 0.580463131201 114% => OK
syllable_count: 501.3 379.143842365 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.5024630542 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.382017217 50.4703680194 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.333333333 104.977214359 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 20.9669160288 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.66666666667 7.25397266985 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 6.9802955665 100% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 2.75862068966 36% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 2.91625615764 137% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.228790855997 0.242375264174 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0706368232976 0.0925447433944 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0835352940775 0.071462118173 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121703956375 0.151781067708 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0285908906472 0.0609392437508 47% => 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: 17.0 12.6369458128 135% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 53.1260098522 59% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 10.9458128079 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.13 11.5310837438 140% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.13 8.32886699507 134% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 55.0591133005 202% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.94827586207 146% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.3980295567 108% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.5123152709 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.8888888889 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 80.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.