The best way to solve environmental pollution is increasing the price of fuel. What exent do you agree or disagree?
There is no denying that fossil fuel plays the most crucial part in this industrialized world. Nonetheless, it is also the determinant factor in making the problem of environmental pollution become worse and worse. Therefore, some people suggest that it would be better if the government intensify the price of fuel. However, from my perspective, I wholeheartedly disagree with this motion as it is awfully wrong-headed.
To commence with, it is undeniable that the significant rise in fossil fuel price will entail a lower living standard of individuals. This policy is highly likely to make people have to spend a disproportionate share of their income on the home appliances running on natural gas such as cooking appliances, laundry and water appliances, home heating, transports and safety concerns. As a result, individuals will find it difficult to find the right balance in their daily expense. An incredible high cost of fossil fuel will driven people to the verge of opting out of those modern appliances requiring petrol, which can definitely lead to a lower living condition of people.
Apart from that, this solution can exert a negative impact on the development of the country. Initially, in all likelihood, public protest, agitation and rebellion will happen on the grounds that people strongly object to this new method. For example, in France, due to the fuel tax rise, there is a violent protest across the country mainly from low or middle income families, which leaves a long lasting effect on the socio economic development. Furthermore, companies will have to meet many hardships and challenges when facing up to the problem of buying natural gas for production as well as selling their own products. If they go bankrupt and cause great economic loss, the country has to suffer from a new recession and incapable of stimulating the development in other fields to the full extent.
To recapitulate, I am totally against this idea as not only can it not address the environmental pollution but it also induces terrible results.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 527, Rule ID: PRP_PAST_PART[3]
Message: Did you mean 'drive' or 'be driven'?
Suggestion: drive; be driven
...ncredible high cost of fossil fuel will driven people to the verge of opting out of th...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, nonetheless, so, therefore, well, apart from, as for, as to, for example, such as, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 41.998997996 107% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1722.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 335.0 315.596192385 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14029850746 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27820116611 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94533850944 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 176.041082164 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.605970149254 0.561755894193 108% => OK
syllable_count: 536.4 506.74238477 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.1772601743 49.4020404114 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.0 106.682146367 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9285714286 20.7667163134 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.2142857143 7.06120827912 145% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 3.9879759519 251% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0922300779021 0.244688304435 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0334968598362 0.084324248473 40% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0345461573395 0.0667982634062 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0656249563857 0.151304729494 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0448158643882 0.056905535591 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.0946893788 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 50.2224549098 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.4159519038 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.02 8.58950901804 105% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 78.4519038076 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.