Today the importance of recycling is not deniable among societies. Yet, in my view, public participation in separating domestic rubbish to reuse some valuable materials is not the way it should be. In this regard, there is a serious controversy over increasing people engagement. Some people opine that regulating new rules by which compel people to participate are solely solution. However, I suppose legal requirement exacerbates the problem and there are more efficient solutions.
To address this problem, need to consider the reasons behind people's reluctant. Currently, governments or municipalities determine definite instructions for classifying rubbish according to their type. Most of the time, these instructions are perplexing. Consequently, some people are unwilling to involve in recycling programs. For example, in our area, this structure is specified by which besides separating glass, metal, paper from each other, the resident must sort plastics in terms of type A, b and C plastics. Apart from that carrying out this structure precisely is laborious and time-consuming, several dwellers, in particular, elderly persons even can not distinguish between kind of stuff such as glass and plastics. As a result, recycling is rarely done in our district.
As stated, the sophisticated process of recycling is a major problem for engaging people. Therefore, I think for two main reasons, establish new rules to govern people, aggravate this trouble. First, new legal process adding to the recycling mechanism, for instance, this is a conceivable problem that dwellers of apartments for the rubbish of the building common area face with a lawsuit between neighborhoods. Next, citizens have to separate their rubbish in an obsessive manner in order to prevent any penalization. Moreover, creating law for recycling domestic rubbish requires monitoring and observation that have possible repercussions such as trespass to residents privacy. Therefore, since oblige citizens is pointless, posing the considerable issues, I assume that finding new ways that facilitate recycling process such as developing some mobile apps that recognize materials type in order to help residents to separate their rubbish can be a practical solution.
To conclude, I believe that simplifies the recycling process has overriding priority over other possible solution. In my view, laws and fines not only are futile but also deteriorate problems.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 458, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in an obsessive manner" with adverb for "obsessive"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...citizens have to separate their rubbish in an obsessive manner in order to prevent any penalization. M...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, consequently, first, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, well, apart from, for example, for instance, i suppose, i think, in particular, kind of, such as, as a result, in my view
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 24.0651302605 112% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 41.998997996 112% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2072.0 1615.20841683 128% => OK
No of words: 368.0 315.596192385 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.63043478261 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37987740619 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08450128171 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 176.041082164 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.595108695652 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 654.3 506.74238477 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 16.0721442886 124% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.1302707339 49.4020404114 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.6 106.682146367 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4 20.7667163134 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0 7.06120827912 142% => 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 : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.223831215326 0.244688304435 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0683179576827 0.084324248473 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0377388195871 0.0667982634062 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130378473478 0.151304729494 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0336204680169 0.056905535591 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.0946893788 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 50.2224549098 72% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.37 12.4159519038 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.76 8.58950901804 114% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 78.4519038076 156% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => 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.