As cities expanding, some people claim governments should look forward 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 as cities expanding, some people claim governments should look forward creating better networks for public transportation available for everyone and its corresponding impacts have sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of complicated 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 rather than building more roads for vehicle owning population can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a general standpoint, the public transportation should be available for everyone rather than more roads for vehicle owning population can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in this fact that the 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 this common phenomenon and complex procedures apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of a public arena, the governments should look forward creating better networks of public transportation available for everyone rather than building more roads, as cities expanding might increase the consequences of vital issues. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of creative processes is correlated negatively with critical issues. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notions of this remarkable phenomenon.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that benefits of more roads building for vehicle owning population are claim by some people to the governments to look forward creating better public transportation available for everyone far outweigh of its drawbacks. not only do the advantages of this unique phenomenon prove the significance of total outcomes, but also pinpoint the thorny issues' potential implications.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-01-12 | Yuli | 77 | view |
| 2023-01-12 | Yuli | 77 | view |
| 2022-11-04 | fereshteh.r | 85 | view |
| 2022-11-04 | fereshteh.r | 55 | view |
| 2022-11-04 | fereshteh.r | 88 | view |
- Parents should be held legally responsible for children's act . What is your opinion? 85
- What is your idea about lazy journalism that is commonplace in digitalized world? 88
- Nowadays, it is increasingly more difficult to maintain the right balance between work and other aspects of one’s life, such as leisure time with family members. How important do you think is this balance? Why do people find it hard to achieve? 85
- The only effective way to deal with unemployment is to introduce rapid urbanization. How far you agree? 85
- Governments promise continuous economic growth, but it's actually an illusion. Some people think that governments should abandon this. Please talk about the validity and the implications. 88
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 314, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Not
...everyone far outweigh of its drawbacks. not only do the advantages of this unique p...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, consequently, hence, if, look, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.5418719212 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 6.10837438424 131% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 20.9802955665 95% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 31.9359605911 97% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.75862068966 174% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1823.0 1207.87684729 151% => OK
No of words: 314.0 242.827586207 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.80573248408 5.00649968141 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 3.92707691288 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.173254864 2.71678728327 117% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 139.433497537 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.563694267516 0.580463131201 97% => OK
syllable_count: 577.8 379.143842365 152% => 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: 3.0 1.56157635468 192% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 1.71428571429 350% => 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: 11.0 12.6551724138 87% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 20.5024630542 137% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 71.8589067502 50.4703680194 142% => OK
Chars per sentence: 165.727272727 104.977214359 158% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.5454545455 20.9669160288 136% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.90909090909 7.25397266985 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 6.9802955665 100% => 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: 0.488609132184 0.242375264174 202% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.168701546212 0.0925447433944 182% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.186439763834 0.071462118173 261% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.317463628671 0.151781067708 209% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.076492022626 0.0609392437508 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.2 12.6369458128 160% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 26.14 53.1260098522 49% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.6 10.9458128079 152% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.71 11.5310837438 145% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.15 8.32886699507 122% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 55.0591133005 185% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 9.94827586207 156% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.3980295567 127% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.5123152709 162% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 76.5 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.