Whether government should fubd public transports or improve the condition of roads?
Some people believe that the government should spend money on mending roads and highways, while others tend to think that public transportation should be improved. Nevertheless, this debate remains unresolved. Personally, I concur with the latter opinion, the government should spend their resources on public transportation. In the following paragraphs I will delve into the reasons and examples to substantiate my viewpoint.
First, improvements in public transportation will subsidise increasing air pollution. Nobody wants to live in an area filled with smog and dust. If buses and trains would be repaired or replaced then problem of pollution would be alleviated. For instance, when old buses were replaced by new ones in my city, Chandigarh, the air quality improved substantially. Also, taking care of the environment is an unsaid mandate of the government.
Second, the main problem in cities is traffic jams, which are caused by the increase in the number of cars and motor vehicles. Traffic jams not only waste time and fuel, but also lead to bad moods among people on the roads. By investing money in public transportation facilities, the government can make them more appealing, which would encourage people to travel by public transportation. Consequently, it will reduce the number of private transports on the road, decreasing traffic jams, and revenue earned through fares will be beneficial for the government itself. On the contrary, if the government improves the conditions of roads and highways, this will encourage more people to drive their own vehicles and deter them from choosing public transportation.
In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm that it is more advantageous for the government to spend more money on public transportation. To recapitulate, improving the conditions of public transport modes of travel would help to control pollution and traffic jam problems, which are most important to tackle in the present situation. Therefore, due to the aforementioned reasons, I believe that it is better to choose to spend on public sector transportation.
- Whether government should fubd public transports or improve the condition of roads 70
- Face to face communication is better than other modes of communications Do you agree or not 76
- Playing videos games can have more negative effects on children 76
- Ethanol as an alternative to petroleum 76
- Illiteracy 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 326, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...heir resources on public transportation. In the following paragraphs I will delve...
^^
Line 2, column 241, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...roblem of pollution would be alleviated. For instance, when old buses were replac...
^^
Line 3, column 223, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... to bad moods among people on the roads. By investing money in public transportat...
^^
Line 3, column 390, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ople to travel by public transportation. Consequently, it will reduce the number ...
^^
Line 4, column 330, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tant to tackle in the present situation. Therefore, due to the aforementioned rea...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, if, nevertheless, second, so, then, therefore, while, for instance, in conclusion, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 15.1003584229 73% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 9.8082437276 143% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 13.8261648746 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.0286738351 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 43.0788530466 46% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 52.1666666667 94% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 8.0752688172 260% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1775.0 1977.66487455 90% => OK
No of words: 326.0 407.700716846 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.44478527607 4.8611393121 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24917287072 4.48103885553 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.24260987479 2.67179642975 121% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 212.727598566 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.542944785276 0.524837075471 103% => OK
syllable_count: 527.4 618.680645161 85% => 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: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 20.6003584229 58% => 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: 27.0 20.1344086022 134% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 112.477003823 48.9658058833 230% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 147.916666667 100.406767564 147% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.1666666667 20.6045352989 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.8333333333 5.45110844103 199% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.5376344086 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8709677419 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.85842293907 52% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88709677419 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.31800156869 0.236089414692 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110026640853 0.076458572812 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0994631402402 0.0737576698707 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.191700661839 0.150856017488 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0619085741198 0.0645574589148 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 11.7677419355 151% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 58.1214874552 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 10.1575268817 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.57 10.9000537634 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 8.01818996416 116% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 86.8835125448 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.0537634409 127% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
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.