Car ownership has increased so rapidly over the past thirty years that many cities in the world are now ‘one big traffic jam.’
How true do you think this statement is? What measures can governments take to discourage people from using their cars?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
It is true that the automobile ownership went up dramatically over the last three decades. It automatically leads to the traffic congestion in cities in many countries of the world. We cannot limit the number of car possessions to deal with this issue. Therefore, the government should think about some solutions to persuade people to refrain from using their own transport in order to reduce the traffic jam.
The demand for car purchase has increased remarkably and it makes car companies produce and release a high number of cars production as well. Simultaneously, the government does not provide the equitable infrastructure, such as the street space and alternative motorways. Consequently, it is normal that traffic congestion happens because the number of cars is not proportional to the facility provided. Another reason is that the price of cars is affordable and people can get a car easily.
In my opinion, there are several actions that government can take to settle from this complicated problem. Firstly, whilst the vehicle companies produce their cars, the government should build and develop the road infrastructure in order to give enough space for many vehicles to minimise the congestion of traffic. Secondly, the government can collaborate with the car companies in producing small smart cars. The advancement of technology today is sufficient to create an innovation in car production. The last but not least is that government should provide many alternative transportations for the public such as trans-city buses, sky trains, and underground trains which offer better, safer, faster and more affordable transportation facilities. As a result, people will tend to choose public transportations than using their own cars. Therefore, the traffic jam will substantially reduce.
To conclude, car possession could not be circumscribed by restricting people from buying it, as evident in the last three decades. Rather more effective ways to tackle the heinous traffic congestion are there that government might select to tackle that issue.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-10 | krupesh koradiya | 73 | view |
| 2018-05-26 | n0air9x9 | 56 | view |
- In the last 20 years, there have been a significant development in the field ofInformation Technology, for example, the World Wide Web and communication byemail. However, these developments in IT are likely to have more negative effectsthan positive in th 89
- Some universities admit students on the basis of academic grades while others prefer interviews and personal statements. Discuss 56
- Many people are too scared to leave their homes because of a fear of crime. some people think that more should be done to prevent crime, where as other feel that nothing can be done.What are your views? 56
- In recent years, there has been a considerable rise in crimes committed by youngpeople in cities.What has caused this ? What solutions can you suggest ? 56
- In cities and town all over the world the high volume of traffic is a problem.What are the causes of this and what actions can be taken to solve this problem ? 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 132, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Rather,
..., as evident in the last three decades. Rather more effective ways to tackle the heino...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, firstly, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, such as, as a result, in my opinion, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 41.998997996 90% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1754.0 1615.20841683 109% => OK
No of words: 321.0 315.596192385 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.46417445483 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23278547379 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09332460897 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 176.041082164 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545171339564 0.561755894193 97% => OK
syllable_count: 529.2 506.74238477 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 8.0 2.52805611222 316% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.4143190087 49.4020404114 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.176470588 106.682146367 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8823529412 20.7667163134 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.11764705882 7.06120827912 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => 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: 0.29642865629 0.244688304435 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0915161093505 0.084324248473 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0404929197084 0.0667982634062 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.17887720047 0.151304729494 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0567059451669 0.056905535591 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.0946893788 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 50.2224549098 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.39 12.4159519038 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.51 8.58950901804 99% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 78.4519038076 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.