The land for parks is wasted and should be used for other purposes. Do you agree or disagree?
Parks are a feature of many, if not most, urban settings. However, there is an argument that the land used for parks in towns and cities should be used for alternative purposes. I strongly disagree with this idea.
Firstly, experts agree that the best way to restore body and mind is to spend time in nature, and do regular physical exercise there. This is crucial because the majority of the population in many countries live in cities. As society becomes more centered on city life, people tend to become sedentary and stay indoors. Recent studies have also shown that spending long periods of time in built-up areas results in a emotional fatigue and poor concentration. On the other hand, time spent in parks has the opposite effects. For example, the British report a high level of satisfaction when they spend most of their holidays outdoors in their National Trust parks. Perhaps the rest of the world should follow their lead.
Moreover, teenagers are the most negatively affected by the city life. Some parents are reluctant to let their children play freely in town, concerned about their health and safety, and so those youngsters miss out on being out in the natural environment and have no chance to do regular physical activities. That leads to an increased risk of childhood obesity and depression.
On top of this, parks provide essential green space in the city and help keep the level of pollutants and greenhouse gases down. Those gases emitted by vehicles are responsible for thousands of deaths per year as well as for the rising incidence of lung cancer in children. However, the vegetation in the parks removes pollutants while the eaves filter the carbon dioxide and release oxygen. Thus, city parks function as a green lung in urban areas which helps keep us healthy.
In summary, although some argue that the land for park in urban areas is wasted, the benefits that parks have been contributing to our societies are undeniable, so obviously I do not support the idea of using that land for other purposes
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-11-21 | Trần Ánh Vy | 73 | view |
| 2024-11-20 | Giang Tran | 84 | view |
| 2024-11-20 | Giang Tran | 84 | view |
| 2024-11-20 | Giang Tran | 73 | view |
| 2024-11-18 | Thai Tran | 84 | view |
- Should parks in city be replaced by different purposes. do you agree or disagree 78
- Nowaday, people living in large cities face many problems in their daily lives. What are these problems? Do you think the government should encourage people to move to smaller towns? 89
- Research shows that business meetings discussions and training are happening online nowadays Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages 79
- Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology can replace their functions. Do you agree or disagree? 89
- The land for parks is wasted and should be used for other purposes Do you agree or disagree 90
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 72, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... best way to restore body and mind is to spend time in nature, and do regular phy...
^^
Line 2, column 416, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ds of time in built-up areas results in a emotional fatigue and poor concentratio...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as for, for example, in summary, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 7.85571142285 25% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 41.998997996 112% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1692.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 346.0 315.596192385 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8901734104 5.12529762239 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49122218564 2.80592935109 89% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 176.041082164 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.595375722543 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 526.5 506.74238477 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.9037597939 49.4020404114 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.0 106.682146367 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2222222222 20.7667163134 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5 7.06120827912 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.330753635688 0.244688304435 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0819552406131 0.084324248473 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.118980803992 0.0667982634062 178% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.197639793898 0.151304729494 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.144213190887 0.056905535591 253% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.0946893788 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 50.2224549098 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.3001002004 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.4159519038 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.58950901804 104% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 78.4519038076 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 9.78957915832 66% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.