Do you agree or disagree: the best way to solve the world’s environmental problem is to increase the price of fuel.
Our world has undergone dramatic transformations during the recent decades, tackling number of deleterious ecological problems. Granted, virtually all countries are concerned with global hazardous threats, but few of them manage to successfully handle the environmental problems and mitigate the harms caused to the nature. Though there have been developed various methods to save our nature, I am strongly of the conviction that one of the best ways is to increase the price of fuel. I feel this way for some discernible reasons, which I will explore in the subsequent body paragraphs.
To commence with, today for the operation of most vehicles, which are the main cause of the environmental pollution, fuel is a crucial ingredient. Therefore, by rising the price of the fuel, the country will significantly diminish the number of cars on the streets. Moreover, it will become unreasonable and not appealing for people to have their own vehicles, as they will realize that it will back on them an arm and a leg. Let us take my own country as a compelling example of this. In Armenia the government has rejected to make the price of fuel more affordable, as it has the vision that in such a scenario there will be a boom in the number of cars in the country. As a result, our fresh air, parks and population’s health will suffer greatly. However, today in my country, in fact, the threat of pollution is negligible mainly due to the few number of cars and traffics.
In addition, harmful though, fuel is for the environment, it still remains the primary source of energy in the whole world. But when the price of fuel will be increased, people will definitely start to seek other alternative sources to get energy from. For instance, if this happens, humanity will switch from fuel-consuming cars to eco-friendly electronic cars, or will start to use natural renewable energy sources such as the power of wind, water and sun. Unlike fuel, power stations and solar panels are of no harm to the environment. Therefore, in this case, global warming will also be harnessed, as fuel is the main source of greenhouse gases. Moreover, I can vehemently declare that alternative types of energy will cost them much less than conventional fuel energy.
In the light of the aforementioned reasons, I will claim that cutting down the use of fuel by increasing its price will be the half battle of fighting the ecological problems.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-04 | ChristineSmb | 76 | view |
| 2019-12-04 | ChristineSmb | 76 | view |
| 2019-12-04 | ChristineSmb | 76 | view |
| 2019-12-04 | ChristineSmb | 70 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree:It Is important to keep your old friends than it is to make new friends. 76
- Do you agree or disagree: the best way to solve the world’s environmental problem is to increase the price of fuel. 76
- Foreign visitors should pay more money than local visitors for cultural and historical attractions. 73
- People learn things better from those at their own level, than from those at a higher level. 90
- IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE HEALTHCARE TO EVERYONE LIVING IN THAT COUNTRY. 90
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 852, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun number seems to be countable; consider using: 'few numbers'.
Suggestion: few numbers
...llution is negligible mainly due to the few number of cars and traffics. In addition,...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, moreover, so, still, therefore, for instance, i feel, in addition, in fact, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 15.1003584229 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 9.8082437276 163% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.0286738351 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 43.0788530466 70% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 52.1666666667 109% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.0752688172 136% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2036.0 1977.66487455 103% => OK
No of words: 410.0 407.700716846 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96585365854 4.8611393121 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49982852243 4.48103885553 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90352101169 2.67179642975 109% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 212.727598566 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.541463414634 0.524837075471 103% => OK
syllable_count: 625.5 618.680645161 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 9.59856630824 83% => OK
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.51792114695 171% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.94265232975 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.4309836187 48.9658058833 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.111111111 100.406767564 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7777777778 20.6045352989 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.66666666667 5.45110844103 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8709677419 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.17716183521 0.236089414692 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0608293246229 0.076458572812 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0468454719028 0.0737576698707 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116897889859 0.150856017488 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.037095783444 0.0645574589148 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 11.7677419355 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 58.1214874552 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.1575268817 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 10.9000537634 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.01818996416 107% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 86.8835125448 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.002688172 115% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.