QQQQQQQ1(수정한버전) : Some people think that the best way to reduce time spent in traveling to work is to replace parks and gardens close to the city center with apartment buildings for commuters, but others disagree. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Recently, the issue of converting green spaces near the central area of the city into residential buildings has become the subject of heated debate. Some people assert that transforming eco-friendly facilities into residential areas in order to reduce time devoted to commuting to and from work should be encouraged, while others argue otherwise. Personally, I wholeheartedly agree with the former stand. In the following essay, both views will be discussed before a conclusion is reached with my opinion.
On the one hand, those who claim that people should not remove environment-friendly facilities in city business district do so for several reasons. Proponents of this argument insist that having gardens and parks often makes it possible for people of working age to take a rest during their lunchtime, with greater ease, helping them to unwind. To provide a hypothetical example, if it were not for green places near the city centre, a multitude of employees would have difficulty alleviating the level of stress, which can even exert a detrimental influence on their work performance.
My opinion, however, is that it is an effective way of combating a high volume of traffic to substitute a myriad of apartments in CBD for green places. Perhaps the most convincing reason is that if a huge number of working adults residing near the city centre travel to the workplace by foot or bike, other dwellers in suburban areas would be less likely to experience traffic congestion. This is because the number of personal vehicles on roads would remarkably decrease, leading the masses to have an improved standard of living. Moreover, depriving commuters of less time dedicated to travel to work can allow working people to more focus on their employment. In light of the above, I find these more 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, I fully support the view that destroying gardens and parks located in the centre of the city and establishing housing areas are beneficial for our society for the reasons discussed above.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-07-12 | idid382003 | 84 | view |
| 2021-07-10 | idid382003 | 89 | view |
| 2021-07-10 | idid382004 | 89 | view |
| 2021-07-06 | idid382002 | 89 | view |
| 2021-07-06 | idid382002 | 78 | view |
- QQ9 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
- Q Living in a country where you have to speak a foreign language can cause serious social problems as well as practical problems To what extent do you agree with this statement 84
- Many museums and historical sites are mainly visited by tourists and not local people Why is the case What can be done to attract local people 73
- Q6 Some people think that it is better to educate boys and girls in separate schools Others however believe that boys and girls benefit more from attending mixed schools Discuss both these views and give your own opinion 84
- Q 15Universities and colleges are now offering qualifications through distance learning from the Internet rather than teachers in the classroom Do you think the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages 78
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, I fully support the view that destroyi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, moreover, so, well, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 24.0651302605 112% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 41.998997996 143% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1807.0 1615.20841683 112% => OK
No of words: 350.0 315.596192385 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16285714286 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32530772707 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90896011997 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 176.041082164 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.6 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 574.2 506.74238477 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 62.391007005 49.4020404114 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.071428571 106.682146367 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 20.7667163134 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.78571428571 7.06120827912 54% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.278869418347 0.244688304435 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.080062686341 0.084324248473 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0518419678597 0.0667982634062 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153324382615 0.151304729494 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.026753021511 0.056905535591 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 13.0946893788 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 50.2224549098 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.3001002004 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.4159519038 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.7 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 78.4519038076 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => 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.