Do the government should invest money on constructing road around the city for the private vehicle or implement better public transport facility?
In recent times, the phenomenon of investing money on constructing roads around the city for private vehicles by government and its corresponding impacts have sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that implementing better public transport is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded both constructive and consequently positive by a substantial number of individuals. However, I am inclined to believe that the availability of organized private transport facility is a plus, and I will explain my point by discussing both sides of the opinions.
At the outset and from a general standpoint, manufacturing roads in every possible area for personal vehicles can lead to better public satisfaction since more roads will ensure that people can drive their personal vehicles and visit for picnics with their family. For example, according to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experience which discovered that more roads around the town increased satisfaction among individuals. Thus beneficial ramification of a better quality of life and high personal satisfaction apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of transport facilities, implementing better public transport facility will be useful for people because it will ensure that environment is saved from dangerous gases which causes pollution and there will be more parks and playgrounds where individuals can spend time. To illustrate, scientific research conducted by a prestigious university have shown that good public transport facility has economic and environmental benefits. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of this remarkable phenomenon.
To recapitulate, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that implementing an organized public transport facility will have significant effect on individual’s life.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 470, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...creased satisfaction among individuals. Thus beneficial ramification of a better qua...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, consequently, hence, however, if, so, thus, while, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 6.10837438424 164% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 8.36945812808 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 5.94088669951 185% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 20.9802955665 95% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 31.9359605911 103% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.75862068966 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1618.0 1207.87684729 134% => OK
No of words: 279.0 242.827586207 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.79928315412 5.00649968141 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08696624509 3.92707691288 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.26896261388 2.71678728327 120% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 139.433497537 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.587813620072 0.580463131201 101% => OK
syllable_count: 518.4 379.143842365 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.57093596059 121% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.71428571429 175% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 3.65517241379 164% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 12.6551724138 79% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 20.5024630542 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 57.6701829371 50.4703680194 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 161.8 104.977214359 154% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.9 20.9669160288 133% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.4 7.25397266985 102% => 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 : 0.0 2.75862068966 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 2.91625615764 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.38005737448 0.242375264174 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.128813829016 0.0925447433944 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0966824287313 0.071462118173 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.212945591888 0.151781067708 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.111845497227 0.0609392437508 184% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.8 12.6369458128 157% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 18.69 53.1260098522 35% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.4 10.9458128079 159% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.66 11.5310837438 144% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.79 8.32886699507 118% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 55.0591133005 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.94827586207 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.3980295567 123% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.5123152709 124% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 72.0 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.