In today's society where people are tending to be forever- consumers, it became essential to to take into consideration the consequences on the environment that is linked to this consumerism. Since the revolution of technology and industry the world has been facing dilemmas. For instance, Due to the proliferation of personal l automobiles the need for fuel has increased which has led to the phenomenon of climate change that the world is trying to solve today. That was only one example on environmental destruction that was caused by today's world tendency towards consumerism.
Therefore, I believe we need to actively emphasize the critical need for creating solutions to protect our environment before it is too late. Reflecting to the statement, I don't agree with it because it says that the best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer generated waste, government should define strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household. And in my opinion, this is not a practical method. Implementing this way means limiting people's choices and freedom. It is like telling a family not to eat that much, or ask them to decrease their paper use, or limit their activities. It is indeed limiting. I understand that the assumption is based on the idea that if we want to solve a problem we should start with the roots and it is people in their household in this case. Alternativly, I think we can start from household by teachning people recycling. Every family will know how to sort its trash. We can invest in children from young age by providing them with the skills of recycling so we can rely on them to save our environment in the future. In my opinion, by starting from families we can spread the act to corporations especially the ones that spread their industries by products to their surroundings, until we reach a point where recycling becomes a culture in the community.
In the end, I don't think limiting trash would be the golden solution for solving environmental problems.
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be 16
- The primary goal of technological advancement should be to increase people's efficiency so that they have more leisure time.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for t 58
- The primary goal of technological advancement should be to increase people's efficiency so that they have more leisure time.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for t 50
- The primary goal of technological advancement should be to increase people's efficiency so that they have more leisure time.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for t 58
- Instead of making more leisure time available, instant foods, instant communication, faster transportation have contributed to a more rushed and frantic pace than ever before. 16
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 90, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: to
...forever- consumers, it became essential to to take into consideration the consequence...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 174, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...oo late. Reflecting to the statement, I dont agree with it because it says that the ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 602, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...or ask them to decrease their paper use, or limit their activities. It is indeed ...
^^
Line 6, column 15, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...e in the community. In the end, I dont think limiting trash would be the golde...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, so, therefore, for instance, i think, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 14.8657303371 40% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 33.0505617978 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1691.0 2235.4752809 76% => OK
No of words: 343.0 442.535393258 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.93002915452 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.55969084622 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92282740541 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 215.323595506 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.548104956268 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 525.6 704.065955056 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 0.0 4.99550561798 0% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 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 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.0719009394 60.3974514979 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.6875 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4375 23.4991977007 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.4375 5.21951772744 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.97078651685 60% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.217018740117 0.243740707755 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0640021441198 0.0831039109588 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0997386784905 0.0758088955206 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130435263784 0.150359130593 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0446492076996 0.0667264976115 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.8420337079 120% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.1639044944 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 100.480337079 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 11.8971910112 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.