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?
Recently, the phenomenon of expanding the better network for public transport and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of travelling by subway or train is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined that the beneficial impact of comprehensive transport systems can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, full-mesh transport system can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that merits of being convenient, as well as affordable vehicle, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment, which discovered the direct influence of public transport systems on health. Thus, the beneficial ramifications of both clean atmosphere and more parking space apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of social science, expanding roads network might increase the consequences of polluted air. Moreover, the fundamental aspects of the crowded city could relate to this reality that the demerits of a wide variety of serious health problems pertain to an extensive range of private cars. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of building more roads is correlated negatively with spoiling the environment. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of traffic congestion.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of expanding the comprehensive transport system far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of having a clean air prove the significance of economic transportation, but also pinpoint social implications.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, 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 : 11.0 10.5418719212 104% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 8.36945812808 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 20.9802955665 86% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 31.9359605911 113% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.75862068966 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1617.0 1207.87684729 134% => OK
No of words: 288.0 242.827586207 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.61458333333 5.00649968141 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 3.92707691288 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21156155229 2.71678728327 118% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 139.433497537 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.642361111111 0.580463131201 111% => OK
syllable_count: 503.1 379.143842365 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.57093596059 108% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 3.0 1.56157635468 192% => 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: 24.0 20.5024630542 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.9528630088 50.4703680194 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.75 104.977214359 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 20.9669160288 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41666666667 7.25397266985 88% => 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 : 3.0 2.75862068966 109% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 2.91625615764 69% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.124820092735 0.242375264174 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0416430242082 0.0925447433944 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0455916556092 0.071462118173 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0663535590494 0.151781067708 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0318283563818 0.0609392437508 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 12.6369458128 135% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 53.1260098522 73% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 10.9458128079 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.55 11.5310837438 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.47 8.32886699507 126% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 55.0591133005 187% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.94827586207 146% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.3980295567 112% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.5123152709 114% => 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.