As cities expanding, some people claim governments should look forward to creating better networks of public transportation available for everyone rather than building more roads for vehicle owning population. What’s your opinion? Give some examples or experience to support.
Recently, the phenomenon of creating better networks of public transportation compared to building more roads for vehicle owning population and its corresponding impacts have 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 creating better networks of public transportation can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, public transportation can provide the society with some noticeable effects, which are in the fact that 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 for vehicle owning population might increase the consequences of critical needs. Moreover, fundamental aspects of building more roads could relate to this reality that the demerits of expenses to the wasting money. 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 notions of this remarkable phenomenon.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments of both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of creating better networks 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: 33.0 31.9359605911 103% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.75862068966 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1602.0 1207.87684729 133% => OK
No of words: 276.0 242.827586207 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.80434782609 5.00649968141 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 3.92707691288 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.2409050678 2.71678728327 119% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 139.433497537 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.630434782609 0.580463131201 109% => OK
syllable_count: 508.5 379.143842365 134% => 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: 34.6794848097 50.4703680194 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.5 104.977214359 127% => 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 : 8.0 6.9802955665 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => 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: 0.21543822949 0.242375264174 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0723212050046 0.0925447433944 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0832817488205 0.071462118173 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119833658998 0.151781067708 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0704298568474 0.0609392437508 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 12.6369458128 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 53.1260098522 59% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 10.9458128079 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.66 11.5310837438 144% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.96 8.32886699507 132% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 55.0591133005 196% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 9.94827586207 156% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.3980295567 108% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.5123152709 162% => 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.