Should government build more roads to allow more vehicle owner or improve the network of public transport?
One of the most conspicuous trends in today's world is the colossal upsurge in the number of vehicles on the roads. There is widespread worry that it would only lead to the myriad of concerns. Some believe that government should construct more roads to accommodate more vehicles, I am of the opinion, improving public transportation is the only way to cope with this apprehension.
On the one hand, critics believe that possessing one's vehicle is the inherent right of every citizen and government should take appropriate action to provide the space for more cars on the roads. For example, in Sydney number of personal vehicle rise from 20 percent to 64 percent in last decade, and therefore, the number of roads increased exponentially.
On the other hand, there is a deluge of arguments in favor of my stance. The most preponderant one is that public transport is the only way to keep the traffic congestion in control. Not only can the improved network of public transport reduce the traffic jams during peak hours but can also decrease the environmental degradation caused by the increased cars. Take newly extended train route on "Campbelltown Line," according to the ABC News: it reduces the traffic congestion up to 10 percent in the area. Hence, it is apparent that why many are in favor of developing public transport system rather than investing money in constructing more roads.
In the view of arguments outlined above, one can conclude that the benefits of strengthening transportation infrastructure are indeed too great to ignore.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 50, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...e hand, critics believe that possessing ones vehicle is the inherent right of every ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 420, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...d train route on 'Campbelltown Line,' according to the ABC News: it reduces ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, so, then, therefore, for example, on the other hand
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 : 3.0 8.36945812808 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 5.94088669951 101% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 20.9802955665 57% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 31.9359605911 135% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.75862068966 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1303.0 1207.87684729 108% => OK
No of words: 256.0 242.827586207 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08984375 5.00649968141 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 3.92707691288 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02326337919 2.71678728327 111% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 139.433497537 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55859375 0.580463131201 96% => OK
syllable_count: 406.8 379.143842365 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.57093596059 102% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.6157635468 43% => OK
Article: 2.0 1.56157635468 128% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.71428571429 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.65517241379 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 12.6551724138 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.5024630542 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.2442953198 50.4703680194 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.454545455 104.977214359 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2727272727 20.9669160288 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.27272727273 7.25397266985 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.33497536946 37% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 6.9802955665 86% => 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: 0.294944591577 0.242375264174 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0938043665831 0.0925447433944 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105368839994 0.071462118173 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.160564037545 0.151781067708 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0915842277577 0.0609392437508 150% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 12.6369458128 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.1260098522 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.54236453202 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.9458128079 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 11.5310837438 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.32886699507 105% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 55.0591133005 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.94827586207 106% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.3980295567 108% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.5123152709 105% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 77.7777777778 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 70.0 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.