The world should take steps towards the elimination of fossil fuels, to be replaced by renewable energy. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your opinion.
There is a contention in some circles that humankind ought to take preventative measures to substitute alternative fuels for non-renewable one. Misguided objections notwithstanding, this idea is deserving of praise since using fossil fuels does much harm to environments and national budget.
This writer believes the strongest argument for replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy is that carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuels results in the greenhouse effect. As a result of the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the sun's heat is retained over the earth, which leads to global warming issues. It is for that reason major catastrophes such as ice cap melting, the rise of sea levels and flooding coasts will occur more frequently throughout the world. Perhaps an agenda of imposing a levy on fossil fuels emissions is needed to encourage people to use renewable energy, for instance, solar and wind power.
Another key component of the case for the energy replacement is that fossil fuels' waste is a burden to national budgets. It is essential to understand that after burned, fossil fuels release a variety of pollutants which can have bad impacts on living surroundings. For that reason, governments use a large amount of national budgets for appropriate actions such as sewage and industrial waste treatment. Perhaps the case of Vietnam is most germane here, as in 2013, Vietnamese Government spent a quarter of its income for sewage treatment only.
Those who hold the opposite point of view claim that fossil fuels should be continually used as main sources of energy. Yet this way of thinking neglects to understand that possibilities of suffering a shortage of fossil fuels are inevitable. It is also clear that renewable energy is potential substitute for non-renewable one due to its massive quantity and safety for use. Therefore, measures should be taken to develop renewable energy and reduce people's reliance on fossil fuels.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 193, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...d objections notwithstanding, this idea is deserving of praise since using fossil fuels does...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, so, therefore, for instance, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1655.0 1615.20841683 102% => OK
No of words: 314.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27070063694 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87312866953 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 176.041082164 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.592356687898 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 523.8 506.74238477 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.384769539078 0% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.76152304609 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 16.9418272392 49.4020404114 34% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 118.214285714 106.682146367 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4285714286 20.7667163134 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.92857142857 7.06120827912 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.220636844898 0.244688304435 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0790476044692 0.084324248473 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.047775909915 0.0667982634062 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134303321196 0.151304729494 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0477670669153 0.056905535591 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.0946893788 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.4159519038 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.66 8.58950901804 112% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 78.4519038076 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.