the state should set fines or penalties for companies which produce pollution or it should find other ways to deal with the pollution problem. which one is better?
The question is whether that government should punish companies which produce pollution through setting tax or fine or it would be better for states to look for the approaches to solve the mentioned problem. Everyone with regard to his private viewpoint may maintain a specific direction toward this issue. Some believe that penalties can be effective because companies may lose their benefit in this route while others have a conviction that government must search strict methods to remove the pollution instead of dealing with it. I am unanimous with the latter group; so the next paragraphs will vastly elucidate my vantage point through three salient reasons:
To begin with, nobody could overlook the fact that pollution has negative effects on human beings' health. As a matter a fact, it would reinforce some diseases such as cancer, breath or heart troubles and weakening eyes and list goes on. All of these in long term may create irrecoverable damages. It can be said that paying tax or fine may dwindle the level of pollution but it can never eliminate this aforementioned problem totally. The states should notice the ways which eradicate pollution. This can be gained by getting help from the young forces and their creativity to plan new ideas.
In addition, not only the pollution is harmful for living beings, but also it harms environment and birds, animals or plants species. Nowadays, with increasing industrial movements in all over the world, the wild species are threatened to extinction. Recovering them may be very expensive because if pollution continues in any level, people have to transfer threatened species to another area- this approach is called assistance migration- and this movement requires a lot of efforts ,researches and money. One should not forget that money which is earned through fines or penalties will not be enough for rescuing wild species; hence, it can be logical for rulers to find other solutions for deleting pollution.
Moreover, today's the overwhelming majority of companies are able to obtain more profits through their products; consequently, they may not like to change their approach in production line. Needless to say the mentioned companies prefer to embrace fines or penalties instead of altering their method and taking risk. I mean, they can be used to giving fines.
To sum up, this conclusion could be drawn that the states should spend their time or money on finding new plans to remove the pollution. Setting fines may reduce the level of pollution but it can never solve the problems related to humans or environment.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-10-21 | peerless alex | 90 | view |
- tpo16 85
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? For success in a future job, the ability to relate well to people is more important than studying hard in school. 85
- Tpo45 3
- Tpo22 67
- A city wants to help teachers of its high school students (ages14-18) improve their teaching. It is considering two plans:1. Choose a small group of excellent teachers; these teachers will attend a class led by an expert for additional training in how to 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 92, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'beings'' or 'being's'?
Suggestion: beings'; being's
...pollution has negative effects on human beings health. As a matter a fact, it would re...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 484, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
... this movement requires a lot of efforts ,researches and money. One should not for...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, hence, if, look, may, moreover, so, while, i mean, in addition, such as, to begin with, to sum up, with regard to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 15.1003584229 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 9.8082437276 255% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 19.0 13.8261648746 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 43.0788530466 84% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 52.1666666667 94% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 8.0752688172 285% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2178.0 1977.66487455 110% => OK
No of words: 423.0 407.700716846 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14893617021 4.8611393121 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53508145475 4.48103885553 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61483889091 2.67179642975 98% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 212.727598566 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581560283688 0.524837075471 111% => OK
syllable_count: 655.2 618.680645161 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 9.59856630824 94% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.9489036761 48.9658058833 127% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.0 100.406767564 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 20.6045352989 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.66666666667 5.45110844103 141% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.85842293907 207% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.349845068295 0.236089414692 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101152990577 0.076458572812 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112905226941 0.0737576698707 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.190016795343 0.150856017488 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0872485883456 0.0645574589148 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 11.7677419355 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 58.1214874552 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 10.9000537634 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.01818996416 110% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 86.8835125448 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.002688172 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.247311828 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.