People think that government should increase the cost of fuel for cars and other
vehicles to solve environmental problems.
Give your opinion.
There is a spreading belief that the price of fuel that used for cars and other means of transportation should be increased to deal with environmental problems. I would like to express my contradiction to this statement and my reasons are outlined below.
Merits of raising taxes on petrol is hard to deny. The first to mention is it could help to minimize the effect of air pollution. One reason for this is that air contamination is mostly caused by traffic jams and gas emissions from cars and motorbikes in many growing countries. Thus, it could improve the quality of the atmosphere and prevent people from lung diseases. An additional positive is current administrations could use money earning from this policy to maintain and upgrade infrastructures. Take a look at London as an example, the government of this city used taxes to renovate public transport for the citizens. Therefore, people are encouraged to use public transport for their daily commute, and also reducing air pollution from congestions.
Nevertheless, increasing the cost of fuel can trigger a range of potential risks. One of the biggest negative is the raise of corruption. It could be a big concern if the money is not managed optimally. Another worrying issue is this could lead to financial burdens for many families, especially for poor families. In result, they could not have enough spending to effort the taxes, while there are many problems have to face with such as the expenditure on food, clothes, and further education.
In conclusion, raising petrol taxes has both pros and cons. For the one thing, it could reduce air pollution and increase funding on maintenance cost of public transports. However, it could lead to corruption and financial burdens. Personally, I am inclined to the fact that the drawbacks outnumber the advantages. Therefore, it is also imperative to thoroughly examine before this policy could be mandated in other countries.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-25 | kashyap sahil | 56 | view |
| 2023-09-07 | huy ha | 78 | view |
| 2023-08-28 | Phuong1810 | 78 | view |
| 2023-08-28 | Phuong1810 | 78 | view |
| 2023-07-28 | Amanda158 | 61 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, look, nevertheless, so, therefore, thus, while, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 41.998997996 105% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1626.0 1615.20841683 101% => OK
No of words: 318.0 315.596192385 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11320754717 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94794171409 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 176.041082164 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.566037735849 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 507.6 506.74238477 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.6633256263 49.4020404114 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.5789473684 106.682146367 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7368421053 20.7667163134 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05263157895 7.06120827912 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.9879759519 201% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.168671650925 0.244688304435 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0458267283255 0.084324248473 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0651988739629 0.0667982634062 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109475649593 0.151304729494 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.045597059354 0.056905535591 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 13.0946893788 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 50.2224549098 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.3001002004 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.06 12.4159519038 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 78.4519038076 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.