Transportation nowadays plays an essential role in our life and cars are the most important part of it. Almost all of all of us, directly or indirectly use automobiles every day. Cars usage is not only for privet journies but also for several other applications in public transportation, products delivery, industries, cargoes and so on. If I want to answer the question where in the next twenty years there were fewer cars than are today, though many may agree with the idea, others would disagree. In my view, in the next twenty years, we have more cars on the planet for two important reasons.
The main reason is that there are several undeveloped and underdevelopment countries that are even at the beginning or middle of car usage and production. Even though the human's technology is growing fast and such techs like IT communications, computers usage, IoT are going to replace the common transportation, but uncivilized nations have not the money for this change. For example, when I was in Moscow during my doctoral studies, I found that IT technologies are very common in peoples daily life. They could perform lots of things even their job remotely without real transportation. Such businesses like internet magazines played an important role in their life. Some month ago I have traveled to Africa. People there were poor and in some regions even there were not pure water for drinking. Cars tech were old and internet speed was something near zero. As you can see, even though in developed places may virtual transportation is growing, but in some others, there are very low-speed development and new techs is not going to replace cars.
Another reason is that new technology development rate is not enough to ignore cars in future decades. Scientific achievements in both IT and automobile industries are good but not sufficient. For instance, I have seen many new fantastic techs when I was in Moscow. Even one of them can revolute our future life but as I saw in my researches for several years in Russia and other foreign countries, using traditional techs is already continuing. My studies taught me that there is a very great new tech is needed for ignoring automobiles.
In sum, cars for the next twenty years will be used more and more. Our tech and money is not enough.
- TPO INTEGATED 3 3
- TPO 4 _ Independent TaskDo you agree or disagree with the following statement?In twenty years there will be fewer cars in use than today.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 76
- TPO 4 _ Independent TaskDo you agree or disagree with the following statement?In twenty years there will be fewer cars in use than today.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 70
- Integrated Example Notefull : Zoos (Good) 76
- TPO ind 4 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 112, Rule ID: PHRASE_REPETITION[1]
Message: This phrase is duplicated. You should probably leave only 'all of'.
Suggestion: all of
...e the most important part of it. Almost all of all of us, directly or indirectly use automobi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 448, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun may seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much may', 'a good deal of may'.
Suggestion: much may; a good deal of may
... were fewer cars than are today, though many may agree with the idea, others would disag...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 172, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
...r usage and production. Even though the humans technology is growing fast and such tec...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, may, so, for example, for instance, in my view
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 15.1003584229 179% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 9.8082437276 71% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 13.8261648746 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.0286738351 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 43.0788530466 74% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 52.1666666667 71% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.0752688172 136% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1909.0 1977.66487455 97% => OK
No of words: 391.0 407.700716846 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88235294118 4.8611393121 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44676510885 4.48103885553 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79540928903 2.67179642975 105% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 212.727598566 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.549872122762 0.524837075471 105% => OK
syllable_count: 608.4 618.680645161 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 1.0 3.08781362007 32% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.51792114695 171% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6003584229 102% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.1344086022 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.8257116014 48.9658058833 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.9047619048 100.406767564 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.619047619 20.6045352989 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.90476190476 5.45110844103 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.85842293907 26% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.88709677419 205% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.136743765529 0.236089414692 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.04025984758 0.076458572812 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0649078390671 0.0737576698707 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1069596608 0.150856017488 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0698063048967 0.0645574589148 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 11.7677419355 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 58.1214874552 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.1575268817 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 10.9000537634 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.01818996416 101% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 86.8835125448 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.0537634409 92% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.