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.
There has been a rise in environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste. Some believe the best way to combat the increase in problems is by imposing strict limits on the amount of trash accepted from each household. Although this suggestion has some merits, it is merely a step in the many that towns and cities can take. Therefore, I mostly disagree with the claim that imposing strict limits on trash is the best way to solve environmental problems.
Firstly, limiting the amount of trash accepted by the town is not guaranteeing resolution of environmental problems. What will the residents do if they produce more trash than the city’s limits? If the town is not providing the means for residents to safely dispose of the trash, there can be an increase in pollution. Waters will become murkier and the roads will be littered. This would be quite counterproductive of the initiative stated. Some residents may even resort to throwing their trash in their neighbor’s bin, just so they don’t get in trouble. Conflicts will needlessly ensue because of such a limit.
Additionally, there are various household sizes, so limiting the amount of trash accepted would need to be scaled. Otherwise, it would not make sense for a household size of four to have the same trash limit as a household of two. Furthermore, the age of the members of the household need to be considered. Those who wear diapers, like younger children and older adults, will produce more waste than others. Hence, imposing strict limits on the amount accepted is not completely viable if such considerations are not taken into account. Along the same thread, would restaurants and stores be considered as households? Waste is produced in such areas as well and it would be unfair for residents to be limited in their use if such companies are able to.
Although curtailing the amount of waste accepted from households is not the best idea, it certainly is moving in the right direction to resolve environmental problems. In doing so, residents will be more conscious about the amount of plastic and food they consume, reducing the amount of waste. However, in cases mentioned above, some means cannot be compromised. Instead, towns should educate its residents on reusing and recycling to promote less waste. Moreover, they can provide separate bins for recycling and trash, alone with suggestions on how residents can use their leftover food to create a compost pile. These suggestions will relieve some of the stress residents impose on the environment, while also maintaining the residents’ habits. Even though limiting the amount of waste produced by households is helpful for the environment, there are better ways to do so.
All in all, limiting the amount of trash accepted from each household may not be feasible and may worsen environmental problems. Nonetheless, such an initiative is a good start in curbing environmental problems.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 648, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...st pile. These suggestions will relieve some of the stress residents impose on the environm...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, moreover, nonetheless, so, therefore, well, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.4196629213 185% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 11.3162921348 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 33.0505617978 61% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 58.6224719101 107% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2462.0 2235.4752809 110% => OK
No of words: 481.0 442.535393258 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1185031185 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68313059816 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91440796722 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.469854469854 0.4932671777 95% => OK
syllable_count: 757.8 704.065955056 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.9298677272 60.3974514979 50% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 91.1851851852 118.986275619 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8148148148 23.4991977007 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.03703703704 5.21951772744 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.495599649734 0.243740707755 203% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.132090038012 0.0831039109588 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106339979758 0.0758088955206 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.294729663602 0.150359130593 196% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.125703457284 0.0667264976115 188% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.1392134831 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.8420337079 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.12 12.1639044944 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.38706741573 95% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 100.480337079 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.