In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
The matter in which allocating money on manifold infrastructure projects has recently sparked an intense debate. Notwithstanding contested by many people that the matter of building high-speed trains for commuting is highly beneficial, others feel that governments had better use their public fund to retrofit existing public transports. This essay will unravel both points of view before rendering a plausible conclusion.
From a social standpoint, building super-fast railways has several benefits, which helps to develop the economy. As a developing countries, logistics sector plays an important role of delivering goods to every destination around the country, which base significantly on train. Otherwise, air delivery might be fastest, yet it pales in comparison to trains in terms of price and volume. According to a survey, for instance, reported that 90% of domestic goods has been transported by train in the US for recent 5 years. In addition, travelling by train might be prevalent and prominent in crowded countries like China and India due to its affordable fees.
On the other hand, governments only focus on developing railway lines for high-speed trains, which has some drawbacks. Firstly, trains might be gain their best performance for long distance travel while have some inconveniences in the event of short distance where buses or metros hold their position. Secondly, retrofitting public transports will require less money than constructing a new railway system. Moreover, traditional public transport like buses can share available infrastructures with other vehicles, which helps to save money for other vital sector such as education and public health. Researchers from RMIT university, for illustration, claimed that US government saved approximately 9 billion dollars in improving project for existing public transport instead of investing in a new railway line to connect their two cities.
In conclusion, the aforesaid discussion illustrates how nuances that a government either put an investment in a fast railway system or improving their available public transports, which make it possible to propose a certain suggestion. To me, I believe that a government should, in long-term, deem their resources to choose the best plan for its country. Especially, air travel is well on its way to becoming a dominant player in following years with affordable prices.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-07 | Vivi_peach | 67 | view |
| 2023-01-18 | Behnaz.babayani | 73 | view |
| 2021-11-23 | mina_sharifi | 84 | view |
| 2021-07-16 | aaaudrey43 | 78 | view |
| 2020-10-11 | S.Ranaut | 78 | view |
- Some people believe that allowing children to make their own choices on everyday matters (such as food, clothes, and entertainment) is likely to result in a society of individuals who only think about their own wishes. Other believe that it is important f 89
- In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport. Discuss both v 89
- Many governments think that economic progress is their most important goal. Some people, however, think that other types of progress are equally important for a country. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. 89
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, well, while, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2035.0 1615.20841683 126% => OK
No of words: 365.0 315.596192385 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.57534246575 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37092360658 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06397171775 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 176.041082164 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.624657534247 0.561755894193 111% => OK
syllable_count: 603.0 506.74238477 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.0834748159 49.4020404114 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.1875 106.682146367 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8125 20.7667163134 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.3125 7.06120827912 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 3.9879759519 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.300946848953 0.244688304435 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0875935087977 0.084324248473 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0566517293139 0.0667982634062 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161829036879 0.151304729494 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0779318914701 0.056905535591 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 13.0946893788 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.38 12.4159519038 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.7 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 78.4519038076 147% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.