Some people believe government should spend money on building train and subway lines to reduce traffic congestion. Others think that building more and wider roads is the better way to reduce traffic congestion. Discuss both view and give your opinion.
The method to address traffic jams is a contentious topic for every citizen. While some think that money should be invested in developing train and subway lines, others believe the better solution is building more and wider roads. Both sides of the argument will be analyzed, and then I will elaborate on my own opinion.
Many reasons can explain why some support the money allocation for establishing train and subway systems. Firstly, it will decrease the number of private vehicles which leads to a decrease in traffic jams in rush hours. These means of transport are convenient, safe, and less time-consuming because they have their own infrastructure construction. The second reason which should be highlighted is that this solution can help reduce air pollution, which is a severe problem facing human beings and resulting in global warming. Furthermore, people can save natural resources like oil or gas if they reduced the number of cars used.
On the other hand, road expansion is understandably beneficial. First, if roads are widened, they can be divided into more lanes for different means of transport. Moreover, it will be safer for motorcyclists, cyclists, and pedestrians to have their own lanes separated from big vehicles. Second, it is more accessible for drivers to drive with big transportations like buses, containers. This is also a reason for traffic congestion because in some areas with small roads, big containers or buses account for more than half of the area, and it takes much time to move in case there are two cars against each other.
In conclusion, both views have their own merits. After analyzing these sides, my personal view is that the construction of trains and subway lines will be more effective in solving traffic congestion problems. This is because it will contribute to reducing traffic volume on the roads and preventing accidents.
- As the number of cars increases more money has to be spent on road systems Some people think the government should pay for this Others however think that the user should cover the costs Discuss both view and give your opinion 67
- As the number of cars increases more money has to be spent on road systems Some people think the government should pay for this Others however think that the user should cover the costs Discuss both view and give your opinion 87
- As the number of cars increases more money has to be spent on road systems Some people think the government should pay for this Others however think that the user should cover the costs Discuss both views and give your opinion 67
- in some cities people are choosing cars instead of bicycles while in other cities riding bikes are replacing cars Why is this the case Which development do you think is better 61
- Some people say that it is possible for a country to be both economically successful and have a clean environment Others disagree Discuss both view and give your opinion 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 221, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this means' or 'These means'?
Suggestion: This means; These means
...decrease in traffic jams in rush hours. These means of transport are convenient, safe, and ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, if, moreover, second, so, then, while, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 41.998997996 76% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1584.0 1615.20841683 98% => OK
No of words: 307.0 315.596192385 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15960912052 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80936647198 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 176.041082164 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.589576547231 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 484.2 506.74238477 96% => 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: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.4737259014 49.4020404114 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.0 106.682146367 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1875 20.7667163134 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.9375 7.06120827912 98% => 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 : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.27761354346 0.244688304435 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0845665244581 0.084324248473 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0794591124476 0.0667982634062 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.182083177913 0.151304729494 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0784803932544 0.056905535591 138% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.0946893788 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 50.2224549098 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.3001002004 95% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.4159519038 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 78.4519038076 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.