The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
This topic raises a very delicate issue whether, the best method to control environmental problems caused due to the waste generated in towns and cities by people is to impose strictness on the amount of trash to be collected from each household, or there might be a better option. Indisputably, there are many households who produce a great amount of trash. But, that doesn't mean that imposing such a rule would reduce the amount of trash generated by them. Hence, I disagree with the assertion that the best method to reduce the trash amount generated by the people is to impose strict rules about waste collection.
Firstly, the amount of trash varies depending upon the place and it's use. If, the place is used as a hotel or a restaurant than, naturally the waste generated will be greater than the household produced trash. Also, the waste generated by factories and industries is greater than general office trash. Thus, to impose the same rule for the industries and for the office buildings does not provide with the solution. However, if it is done than the factory might run at loss, which can result into other undesired results.
Secondly, the consumer generated waste is mainly caused due to the products of the factories and industries. In a routine life, people uses sanitary items, clothes and culinary items. So, the maximum amount of the trash generated will obviously be generated at these industries. Therefore, imposing the strict limits on the trash collections on the households might not do any good to the society.
Also, there are many households that produce higher amount of the trash than most of the other households. Still, this is generally due to the potential enterpreneurship being ran by the households. So, by imposing the strict rules of the trash collection on these industries and factories there will be the reduction in the amount of trash produced. However, by imposing it on the households might not render the edicacy intended.
Therefore, to sum it up the contention of the author is indefensible that there will be decreament in the waste generated by imposing stricts laws on the waste collection on households. It is contrasting to the overwhelming evidence that suggests that instead of the households the imposition should be done on the nearby industries and factories to render desired results. So, the author's assertion is not viable to reduce the trash generation to solve environmental problems.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 370, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...duce a great amount of trash. But, that doesnt mean that imposing such a rule would re...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 206, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ship being ran by the households. So, by imposing the strict rules of the trash c...
^^
Line 5, column 174, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... stricts laws on the waste collection on households. It is contrasting to the ove...
^^
Line 5, column 384, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ries to render desired results. So, the authors assertion is not viable to reduce the t...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'still', 'therefore', 'thus']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.233333333333 0.240241500013 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.157777777778 0.157235817809 100% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0777777777778 0.0880659088768 88% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0533333333333 0.0497285424764 107% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0155555555556 0.0444667217837 35% => OK
Prepositions: 0.122222222222 0.12292977631 99% => OK
Participles: 0.0511111111111 0.0406280797675 126% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.7863794496 2.79330140395 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0333333333333 0.030933414821 108% => OK
Particles: 0.00222222222222 0.0016655270985 133% => OK
Determiners: 0.135555555556 0.0997080785238 136% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0244444444444 0.0249443105267 98% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0111111111111 0.0148568991511 75% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2459.0 2732.02544248 90% => OK
No of words: 407.0 452.878318584 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.04176904177 6.0361032391 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49157444576 4.58838876751 98% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.371007371007 0.366273622748 101% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.253071253071 0.280924506359 90% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.211302211302 0.200843997647 105% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.157248157248 0.132149295362 119% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7863794496 2.79330140395 100% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 219.290929204 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.434889434889 0.48968727796 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 46.301301139 55.4138127331 84% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6194690265 97% => OK
Sentence length: 20.35 23.380412469 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.4524013573 59.4972553346 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.95 141.124799967 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.35 23.380412469 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.65 0.674092028746 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.21349557522 77% => OK
Readability: 45.6571253071 51.4728631049 89% => OK
Elegance: 1.79411764706 1.64882698954 109% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.537492197213 0.391690518653 137% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.142506511234 0.123202303941 116% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0917520088606 0.077325440228 119% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.611272660382 0.547984918172 112% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.154324668471 0.149214159877 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.241027686101 0.161403998019 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.111322229762 0.0892212321368 125% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.569314183853 0.385218514788 148% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.077438921703 0.0692045440612 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.403623341685 0.275328986314 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0546691155486 0.0653680567796 84% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.4325221239 48% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.30420353982 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88274336283 102% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 7.22455752212 69% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 3.66592920354 273% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.70907079646 148% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 13.5995575221 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.