Some people believe government should spend money on building train and and subway lines to reduce traffic conjestion. Others think that building more and wider roads is the better way to reduce traffic conjestion. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
It is true that traffic jam has been a huge headache for state governments all over the world in many recent years. While many individuals argue that investing on rail and underground system could be effective and efficient, I believe that building more roads and widen them would be the highly promising approach to tackle this seriously social problem.
On the one hand, there are two principle reasons why government officials should spend money on building train and subway system. One essential reason could be that these are one type of public transportation, which is a vitally important mode of transport to alleviate traffic conjestion. It is evident that the more means of public transport are popularising, the less other means of transport are used as a train could store a vast number of passengers, especially those commuters. Therefore, traffic jam would be no longer a huge problem. Another possible motivation for utilising these means could probably that railway and underground system have used another land as opposed to other means of transport such as bus or taxis, which still take part in the same road with bicycles, motorbikes or cars.
On the other hand, I would advocate with those who think that building more and wider roads could be the highly effective method. due to the feasibility and a smaller amount of money spending on this investment. There is no point in denying that building more and larger roads is less expensive than investing in railway and metro system. This money, instead, could be utilised in widening roads, or even covering the cost of road maintenance, which is one of the main method to reduce traffic chaos. Besides, because not every areas could build railway or subway lines, especially in desert land and other geographically dangerous areas, building more and wider roads appear to be a feasible approach.
In conclusion, it seems to me that more and larger roads would be the effective method to tackle traffic conjestion although building train and underground system could address this problem to some extent.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-11-19 | Khalsa kaur | 78 | view |
- In recent years tourists have paid attention to preserving both the culture and environment of the places they visit However some people think that it is impossible to be a responsible tourist To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion 49
- Healthcare should always be funded by governments, and it should always be free for peopleto use. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this idea? 84
- The charts show the sources of the electricity produced in 4 countries between 2003 and 2008 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 68
- The two column charts below show the percentage of food and other items bought by three European countries in 1998 and 2008 77
- The chart below shows the results of a survey of people who visited four types of tourist attraction in Britain in the year 1999 74
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 131, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Due
...s could be the highly effective method. due to the feasibility and a smaller amount...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, so, still, therefore, while, in conclusion, such as, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 10.4138276553 163% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 41.998997996 79% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1746.0 1615.20841683 108% => OK
No of words: 342.0 315.596192385 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10526315789 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30037696126 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65955885603 2.80592935109 95% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 176.041082164 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508771929825 0.561755894193 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 529.2 506.74238477 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.384769539078 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 20.2975951904 128% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 57.6890255477 49.4020404114 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.307692308 106.682146367 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.3076923077 20.7667163134 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06120827912 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.261134730678 0.244688304435 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100722079931 0.084324248473 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0512438767022 0.0667982634062 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.162401267031 0.151304729494 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0515773168174 0.056905535591 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 13.0946893788 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 50.2224549098 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.4159519038 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.58950901804 98% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 78.4519038076 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 9.78957915832 133% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.1190380762 123% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.