Some people think it is more important to spend money on roads and motorways than on public transport systems. To what extent do you agree?
Deteriorations in the traffic infrastructure of many major cities, causing regrettable accidents, have recently resulted in a lot of heated debates. There is a school of thought holding that more financial resources should be invested into enhancing roads and motorways, rather than public transport systems. From my own perspective, though it is understandable why some people maintain this viewpoint, there are tons of compelling reasons why public transport should take precedence.
To commence with, it is hard to overstate the benefits of improving roads and motorways in any cities. With a better traffic infrastructure, cities can directly prevent the exponential increase of traffic accidents that are caused by run-down roads and motor lanes. Another reason is that roads and motorways can alter the way people judge the economic prosperity of a country. For instance, when comparing the traffic infrastructure in Japan and that in Italy, one can instantly reach the conclusion that the government budget in Italy is limited seeing many incomplete road constructions and dirty pavements.
That said, this argument pales in comparison with a myriad of benefits when public transport is prioritized. Ongoing worrying issues like air quality degradation and traffic congestion in crowded cities can be alleviated. With more modern trains or buses, people are encouraged to take public transport to commute to and from work and hence, cities can cut down a substantial amount of exhaust fumes released from personal vehicles such as cars and motorbikes. As a result, air pollution can be addressed properly, leaving people a cleaner living environment.
In terms of the tourist industry, enhancing public transport systems also yields fruitful consequences. In fact, most visitors opt for public transport as they want to tour a destination for its affordability and accessibility. Public transport systems, therefore, can help promote tourism with meticulous planning and management. A prime example is the case of hop-on-hop-off buses and public bicycle schemes in Ho Chi Minh City, which have elevated the city’s reputation significantly in the perspectives of foreigners.
In general, it is not sagacious to shift more focus to developing roads and motorways and disregard the necessity of public transport systems. With judicious policies, cities can benefit greatly from the improvement of public transport networks.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-03-09 | ophongcute@gmail.com | 89 | view |
| 2022-08-08 | Master Panda | 73 | view |
| 2022-07-21 | DNTMdntm | 56 | view |
| 2022-03-20 | diamondvmp | 70 | view |
| 2022-01-23 | Elaineletere | 78 | view |
- In many countries children are engaged in some kinds of paid work Some people regard this as completely wrong while others consider it as valuable work experience important for learning and taking responsibility Discuss both views and give your own opinio 84
- The chart shows components of GDP in the UK from 1992 to 2000 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 55
- Some people think it is more important to spend money on roads and motorways than on public transport systems To what extent do you agree 78
- The maps below show an industrial area in the town of Norbiton and planned future development of the site Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant Write at least 150 words 89
- Some people think that the range of technology currently available is increasing the gap between rich people and poor people Others think that it is causing the opposite effect Discuss both views and give your own opinion 89
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, hence, if, so, therefore, for instance, in fact, in general, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 41.998997996 124% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2067.0 1615.20841683 128% => OK
No of words: 369.0 315.596192385 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.60162601626 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38284983912 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11052089243 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 176.041082164 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.588075880759 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 631.8 506.74238477 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => 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: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.2343554343 49.4020404114 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.588235294 106.682146367 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7058823529 20.7667163134 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11764705882 7.06120827912 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.221466691522 0.244688304435 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0752613868072 0.084324248473 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0534149252223 0.0667982634062 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131841349164 0.151304729494 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0353128123674 0.056905535591 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 13.0946893788 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.2 12.4159519038 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.11 8.58950901804 118% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 78.4519038076 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.