Environment conservation is one of the most controversial topics in our society. The prompt argues that the best solution for fighting against environmental problems related to consumer waste is to pass a law to limit the amount of waste gathered from each person. I mostly disagree with this assertion for two reasons; the better solution is to make an efficient system of recycling and make innovation in products. However, I do concede that, in some cases, making a cap for collecting waste can be beneficial.
First, one of the most efficient ways to tackle this issue is to introduce a better recycling system. For instance, carefree people dump many unspoiled foods every year. An efficient system can gather this food from consumers in exchange for coupons, for instance, and hand them out to poor people who suffer from malnutrition. This way can lead to decreasing the amount of waste that people throw away in nature. Moreover, scientists and engineers can work together to invent a purifying system that can eliminate the toxic waste in various items and discharge the remains to nature, which is unharmful. Therefore, upgrading or introducing a better recycling system is one efficient way to reduce consumer waste.
Second of all, another way to mitigate environmental problem which comes from consumer waste is to factories modify some food products. For example, many packages are plastic or contain other harmful and long-resistant substances. In this case, scientists can make some materials to substitute them with environment-friendly ones. This can be beneficial in terms of waste as the consumers can dig a hole in their backyards and place them in the soil. In addition, the factory's owner can pack more items with a single packing material and reduce the prices for bigger volumes. In this situation, the consumers tend to buy them as the price is one of the most prominent factors in buying products. Hence, factories can invent some innovations in order to mitigate environmental problems.
Nevertheless, in some cases, limiting the acceptance of trash could reduce environmental problems. After passing a law to accept much less trash, people are forced to buy carefully and consider the waste. Otherwise, they would face many problems in case of finding a solution to throw theirs trashes, such as location. Furthermore, this could hinder them from buying non-essential products, which most would be thrown away. In this situation, the buyers would become unconsciously careful regarding nature and leading to other related activities. Subsequently, by proposing and enforcing a law to limit the acceptance rate, the environmental problem can be diminished.
In conclusion, although limiting the amount of acceptable waste from each consumer can be productive, the best way is to make some innovations in factories and introduce and upgrade recycling systems.
- The following appeared in an article written by Dr Karp an anthropologist Twenty years ago Dr Field a noted anthropologist visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rat 62
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree 83
- The following appeared in a memo to the board of directors of Bargain Brand Cereals One year ago we introduced our first product Bargain Brand breakfast cereal Our very low prices quickly drew many customers away from the top selling cereal companies A 79
- The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a national newspaper Your recent article on corporate downsizing in Elthyria maintains that the majority of competent workers who have lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship o 58
- Some people argue that successful leaders in government industry or other fields must be highly competitive Other people claim that in order to be successful a leader must be willing and able to cooperate with others 79
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, hence, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, second, so, therefore, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, such as, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2431.0 2235.4752809 109% => OK
No of words: 460.0 442.535393258 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2847826087 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6311565067 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99786549774 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 215.323595506 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.482608695652 0.4932671777 98% => OK
syllable_count: 759.6 704.065955056 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.9635987738 60.3974514979 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 101.291666667 118.986275619 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1666666667 23.4991977007 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.66666666667 5.21951772744 147% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.207540463263 0.243740707755 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0656154646157 0.0831039109588 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0642319420174 0.0758088955206 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140374660924 0.150359130593 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0318407794022 0.0667264976115 48% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.1392134831 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 100.480337079 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.