Increasing the price of fuels is the best way to solve pollution problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Recently, the phenomenon of making fuels expensive as a way to decrease pollution problems, the corresponding impacts of higher price has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that increases in the fuel price cannot be highly beneficial, such an issue regarded as thoroughly constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that expensive fossil fuels can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
To begin with, there are various reasons to agree with making fuels expensive to solve pollution problems. At first, many people have no enough financial ability to pay for higher prices. However, this strategy decreases fuel consumption, which reduces environmental pollutions such as smokes production by burning fossil fuels.
In addition, poor people could not purchase expensive fuels to warm their houses. But lower use of burning energies could make the Earth's atmosphere empty of smokes, which this problem of expensive energies could be solved by a governmental subsidy for lower-income people. For instance, the governments could present free public transportation for poor people to compensate for their weakness.
In conclusion, while there are several compelling arguments on this statement, I profoundly believe that the benefits of higher price for fossil fuels for the environment far outweighed its drawbacks.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
Recently, the phenomenon of making fuels...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ll analyze that throughout this essay. To begin with, there are various reasons...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...es production by burning fossil fuels. In addition, poor people could not purch...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ople to compensate for their weakness. In conclusion, while there are several c...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, so, while, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.5418719212 47% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 6.10837438424 115% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 8.36945812808 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 5.94088669951 101% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 20.9802955665 67% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 31.9359605911 85% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.75862068966 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1187.0 1207.87684729 98% => OK
No of words: 214.0 242.827586207 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.54672897196 5.00649968141 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.82475343497 3.92707691288 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99643497963 2.71678728327 110% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 139.433497537 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.630841121495 0.580463131201 109% => OK
syllable_count: 364.5 379.143842365 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.57093596059 108% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.6157635468 65% => OK
Article: 3.0 1.56157635468 192% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.71428571429 117% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 12.6551724138 79% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 20.5024630542 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.1004640346 50.4703680194 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.7 104.977214359 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4 20.9669160288 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.6 7.25397266985 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.33497536946 75% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 6.9802955665 43% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 2.75862068966 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 2.91625615764 69% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.228940702706 0.242375264174 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0948707667229 0.0925447433944 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0872916262539 0.071462118173 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141214998772 0.151781067708 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0689503597264 0.0609392437508 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 12.6369458128 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 53.1260098522 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.54236453202 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.9458128079 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.91 11.5310837438 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.92 8.32886699507 119% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 55.0591133005 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.94827586207 111% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.3980295567 100% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.5123152709 105% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 72.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.