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 or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
Some people think that the most effective approach to solving an environmental issue that rises from human consuming behavior is circumscribing waste and garbage quantity. Others people, however, argue that, Construction of re-cycling center in the proximity of cities such as 5 kilometers far from is better than to confine the trash amount. I agree with the later statement and present the following Reasons to support my point of view.
First of all, the trash quality act out a paramount role in the recycling trash and it divided into two section: Biodegradable which means changing detrimental material to harmless substances by means of biological procedure. This material includes wood, metal, book, and so on and Non-biodegradable that has onerous steps for biodegrading such as PET, plastics, and Radio Active emitting garbage, for example, nuclear trash. If you are not to consider the kind of trash and can’t categorize it, you failed to achieve to recycling thoroughly. In Addition, Governments and citizens must be aware of the threat of unhealthy Environment to Human life. Therefore, we all together reschedule the courses in schools and universities for providing a new and most up-to-date plan for environmental issues.
Second, the value of trash is same as gold which is known as filthy gold. Some development country like as the United State, Japan, Germany and another European country use this trash to providing primary input for your fundamental industries. Since the more trash is equal to the more output. Furthermore, any country couldn’t use your raw material merely. Thus, this supposition that the confining trash amount is obsolete thought.
In summary, I believe, household trash limiting is not a perfect way to solve a disaster like as Environmental pollution. Therefore, I strongly support scrutinizing professionally this issue for a better life for future.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-19 | Juhong Park | 10 | view |
| 2023-10-19 | Juhong Park | 66 | view |
| 2023-10-18 | Juhong Park | 83 | view |
| 2023-10-18 | Juhong Park | 66 | view |
| 2023-10-18 | Juhong Park | 66 | view |
- When old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you 66
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement The best way to travel is in a group led by a tour guide Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement For the successful development of a country it is more important for a government to spend money on the education of very young children five to ten years old than to spend money on universities Use sp 54
- Pterosaurs were an ancient group of winged reptiles that lived alongside the dinosaurs Many pterosaurs were very large some as large as a giraffe and with a wingspan of over 12 meters Paleontologists have long wondered whether large pterosaurs were capabl 80
- 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 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 105, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'section' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'sections'.
Suggestion: sections
...recycling trash and it divided into two section: Biodegradable which means changing det...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 245, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... input for your fundamental industries. Since the more trash is equal to the more out...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, second, so, therefore, thus, for example, in addition, in summary, kind of, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.5258426966 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 12.4196629213 16% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 33.0505617978 61% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 58.6224719101 63% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1617.0 2235.4752809 72% => OK
No of words: 299.0 442.535393258 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.40802675585 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.55969084622 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07378056771 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 215.323595506 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.638795986622 0.4932671777 130% => OK
syllable_count: 502.2 704.065955056 71% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => 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: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.5716653209 60.3974514979 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.8 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9333333333 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.66666666667 5.21951772744 166% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.220515130329 0.243740707755 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0639154293166 0.0831039109588 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.045083845371 0.0758088955206 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125101506134 0.150359130593 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0259876419675 0.0667264976115 39% => 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: 14.0 14.1392134831 99% => OK
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: 14.1 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.81 8.38706741573 117% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 100.480337079 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 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: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.