Government should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this question?
Recently, the question of how to spend public money has become the subject of heated debate. Some people assert that it is essential to invest in setting up railway networks, while others argue otherwise. Personally, I believe that both arguments should be given equal weight. In the following essay, the evidence supporting this contention will be discussed alongside relevant examples.
On the one hand, it seems difficult to refute the idea that there are several advantages to spending money in the construction of railways. Perhaps the principal benefit is that railways are generally more punctual and reliable than other modes of transport. Therefore, establishing new railway lines could facilitate the country-wide transportation of people and goods. To be specific, people with relatives living in different regions could see each other more easily and parcels could be delivered more quickly. Furthermore, there would be a boom in domestic tourism, which would stimulate economic growth in regional areas. For these reasons, there does seem to be a solid basis for several of the arguments in favour of consuming money on building trains.
On the other hand, it seems short-sighted to contend that building railways should take precedence over the construction of roads. The most oft-cited argument against such a view is that public transport systems such as buses and subways play a greater role in citizens' everyday life such as when people commute to and from work. This is partly because the majority of employees have a predisposition to drive to work on a daily basis. In addition, an increase in the quality of these reserved for people with high incomes. It is fairer to invest in public transport infrastructure that everyone benefits from. In light of the above, I also find these persuasive.
In conclusion, it is undeniable that there are a variety of opinions about this topic. However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, it can be concluded that each side of the debate has its strengths, as discussed above.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-07-28 | idid382021 | 89 | view |
- Q5 It is not necessary for people to travel to other places to learn about the culture We can learn as much as from books films and the Internet To what extent do you agree or disagree 78
- Q9 With the increasing demand for energy sources of oil and gas people should look for sources of oil and gas in remote and untouched natural places Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of damaging such areas 89
- Q10 Developments in technology cause environmental problems Some people believe the solution in these problems is everyone accepts a simpler way of life while others say that technology can solve these problems Discuss both views and give your own opinion 89
- Q7 Countries with a long average working time are more economically successful than those countries which do not have a long working time To what extent do you agree or disagree 84
- Q15 Research says more and more business training and business meeting are taking place online Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 127, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a careful manner" with adverb for "careful"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, it can be concluded that each side of ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, however, if, so, therefore, while, in addition, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 24.0651302605 104% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 41.998997996 131% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1730.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 332.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21084337349 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.2685907696 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83722788986 2.80592935109 101% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 176.041082164 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.590361445783 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 541.8 506.74238477 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.2947459703 49.4020404114 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.1111111111 106.682146367 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4444444444 20.7667163134 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.06120827912 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.133659373202 0.244688304435 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0398338189519 0.084324248473 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0324696462225 0.0667982634062 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0782015789998 0.151304729494 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0290976303615 0.056905535591 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.0946893788 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 50.2224549098 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.4159519038 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.14 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 78.4519038076 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => 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.