Government environmental funding has been a matter of contention. Some people hold firm to the belief that national authorities need to focus more on urgent worldwide problems like global warming in place of spending too much on local issues. From my perspective, I absolutely disagree with this notion.
First and foremost, the root causes of global warming are prioritized for discussion. It cannot be denied that small actions yield big results, and the warming in all separate countries establishes global impact. In other words, this means solving local problems completely is the greatest method to tackle worldwide issues. For instance, if all governments can control and dispose of emissions and exhaust fumes reasonably and friendly, the status of human’s habitat can be enhanced.
In the second place, citizen awareness enhancement is of equal importance to government funding. In fact, by giving fundamental knowledge and the urgent situation of the Earth, individuals may gradually become conscious and thereby establish a civilized society with our environment. There are various ways and methods to approach citizens and spread awareness such as social media, volunteer projects, public campaigns, national TV programmes. Inevitably, this responsibility belongs to the government and national authorities of every country over the world.
Last but not least, planning for suitable solutions is worth contemplating. Apparently, the government must have a clear and reasonable plan for their spending from the public budget. It is compulsory for the state apparatus to be conscious about the responsibilities of which problems should be solved first and how much funding it could be.
All in all, not only the root causes but citizen awareness enhancement and planning for suitable solutions are the obligations of the government budget in solving local environmental issues. National authorities ought to thoroughly consider the aforementioned notion to make the right decision.
- The two maps below show an island before and after the construction of some tourist facilities 61
- the illustrations show how chocolate is produced 56
- Some people think that it is more effective for students to study in groups while others believe that it is better for them to study alone Discuss both views and give your opinions 92
- The flow charts shows the production of cement and concrete 89
- Although many people value their public parks this space could be better used for other purposes such as residential areas for the ever growing population or to develop business and boost economies To what extent do you agree or disagree with this 84
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, but, first, if, may, second, so, for instance, in fact, such as, in other words, in the second place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 10.4138276553 144% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 24.0651302605 50% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 41.998997996 83% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1697.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 301.0 315.596192385 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.63787375415 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06167044209 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 176.041082164 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.604651162791 0.561755894193 108% => OK
syllable_count: 514.8 506.74238477 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.8223549672 49.4020404114 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.0625 106.682146367 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8125 20.7667163134 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06120827912 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More 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: 0.165058650451 0.244688304435 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0519564369957 0.084324248473 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0407843475519 0.0667982634062 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.094223800368 0.151304729494 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0535193341401 0.056905535591 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.0946893788 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 50.2224549098 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.43 12.4159519038 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.51 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 78.4519038076 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.