The only way to reduce the amount of traffic in cities to day is by reducing the need for people to travel from home for work, education or shopping. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There has been a colossal upsurge in prodigies discussing the topic of effective solutions to reduce the number of vehicles in metropolitan at the present day. Although some proponents contend that these numbers can ease if limit the resident’s transport daily, I personally disagree with the above statement and opine that there are a range of methods that we can apply to mitigate this phenomenon. In this essay, I will cite some appropriate points related to the reduction of this thorny issue before my rational conclusion is reached.
In the midst of the industrialization age, it is apparent the number of car ownerships is more and more ubiquitous on every corner of the street. First and foremost, we could address this phenomenon by finding alternative methods. Instead of commuting by our car, we could use public transport such as buses, trains, etc. Secondly, the government might impose high taxes on petroleum and enact traffic laws to limit the number of private cars. The authority might allocate the permission time for using private cars and encourage people don’t use them if unnecessary. Thirdly, the government should invest more in public transport or the educational institutions should organize a paradigm that resembles the school bus to hop on and hop off children. To illustrate, Japanese authorities have capitalized on their traffic infrastructures to foster their residents to use public vehicles and even sustain the number of employees and students working outside.
Limiting the opportunity for the resident to commute outside for work and study could be admittedly seen as an efficient method whereas it doesn’t bring the optimal results for society. In spite of the fact that cutting off the need for people to travel in terms of education, jobs,… in the city could minimize the number of vehicles on the street, it still has some setbacks for the habitant. It is obvious that shopping and working on the online interface can decrease the huge number of commuters for the city but it might force people to do more desk jobs. This trend could lead to a sedentary lifestyle and affect adversely city dwellers’ health. Furthermore, it is paradoxical to deter the chance to travel outside which could urge people to become couch potatoes. Finally, cooping up in the own house for a long time can increase the illness related to mentality and physics such as stress, and obesity due to the lack of flexible movements.
In conclusion, it is all stated that the above statement can be worked while the demerits of this can outweigh the merits. I wholeheartedly assume that we can find a plethora of alternative solutions which might maintain a chance to go outside frequently for commuters and even decrease the number of carbon footprint emissions in the environment.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-10-17 | nhanluu79462 | 78 | view |
| 2023-05-14 | hieu13092006 | 56 | view |
| 2023-01-04 | vanphat03 | 80 | view |
| 2022-12-01 | NSMDeadshot0411 | 78 | view |
| 2022-07-23 | levanhoan123 | 78 | view |
- The pie charts below show the average household expenditures in a country in 1950 and 2010 84
- The diagram shows the components of a neuron and how it works 78
- Nowadays people depend on technology for leisure activities Is this a positive or negative development 89
- The bar chart below gives information about vehicle ownership in China 73
- The pie graphs show the nutritional consistency of the two dinners 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 281, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , …
...le to travel in terms of education, jobs,… in the city could minimize the number o...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, if, second, secondly, so, still, third, thirdly, well, whereas, while, in conclusion, such as, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 7.85571142285 267% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 24.0651302605 141% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 66.0 41.998997996 157% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2351.0 1615.20841683 146% => OK
No of words: 461.0 315.596192385 146% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09978308026 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63367139033 4.20363070211 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85319308851 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 176.041082164 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.542299349241 0.561755894193 97% => OK
syllable_count: 745.2 506.74238477 147% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 5.43587174349 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 46.0308538501 49.4020404114 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.611111111 106.682146367 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6111111111 20.7667163134 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.77777777778 7.06120827912 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.1869064322 0.244688304435 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0537185963098 0.084324248473 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0573751584139 0.0667982634062 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0966398206344 0.151304729494 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0797286047935 0.056905535591 140% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 13.0946893788 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 50.2224549098 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.3001002004 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.4159519038 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.4 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 78.4519038076 168% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.78957915832 138% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => 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.