Should we ban plastic bags?
Many governments have enacted policies for embarking on fighting plastic bags pollution, which has recently sparked a host of people to embrace the idea of banning plastic bags. However, I firmly believe plastic bags themselves are not problematic and the prohibition of using them actually brings more harms than benefits.
Plastic bags use is often condemned to result in negative impacts on human health and environment; in fact, the culprit is human ourselves. Firstly, it is apparent that plastic bags do not pose any grave danger if being properly collected and recycled. Our overconsumption along with the habit of littering is the key factor that deteriorates our habitats. Secondly, plastic bags pollution is also rooted in the poor management of governments. Legal systems are not sufficiently efficient to curb plastic production companies from being only profit-oriented. Governments neglect campaigns to promote green use as well. Thirdly, the annual spending of governments does not allocate adequate financial aid for collecting and recycling waste from plastic bags.
Equally important, banning the use of poly bags actually puts undue burdens on the economy. It is obvious that at the moment there is no economical alternative to plastic bags; paper bags are normally several times more expensive and cloth ones are even more than. Shoppers will eventually have to suffer this inconvenience. In addition, the approval of plastic bags ban means layoffs, then a number of manufacturers have to change their business model and governments have to re-allocate employees in the plastic manufacturing sector to another one, which is not feasible and unable to complete over a short time. The last argument to notice that focusing on finding eco-friendly alternatives to plastic bags will need more subsidies than doing researches on them, which have been familiar and deeply investigated by scientists for years.
To sum up, it is not fair to blame and single out plastic bags as the cause of environmental degradation and habitat destruction. Without stopping human behavior of littering and considering the cost of plastic bags replacement, the prohibition of plastic bags just seems plausible on the surface.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-27 | lauren123z | 67 | view |
| 2023-08-05 | Davronova Dilnoza Damirovna | 56 | view |
| 2023-06-28 | An Hai Nguyen | 89 | view |
| 2023-02-07 | lilyinyourarea | 84 | view |
| 2022-12-30 | Lunar Tran | 61 | view |
- Discuss the consequences of deforestation. 11
- To what extent are people in your country interested in vegetarianism? Why? 89
- Intelligent machines such as robots are widely applied to take the place of human beings. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages. 89
- What could be the consequences of deforestation? 89
- Should we ban plastic bags? 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 2, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Equally,
... recycling waste from plastic bags. Equally important, banning the use of poly bags...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 842, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...y investigated by scientists for years. To sum up, it is not fair to blame and s...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, well, in addition, in fact, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 7.85571142285 38% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1890.0 1615.20841683 117% => OK
No of words: 347.0 315.596192385 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44668587896 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00197732897 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 176.041082164 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.605187319885 0.561755894193 108% => OK
syllable_count: 585.0 506.74238477 115% => 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: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.9423204575 49.4020404114 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.125 106.682146367 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6875 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.875 7.06120827912 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.67935871743 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 3.9879759519 326% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.352561061089 0.244688304435 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.118279438866 0.084324248473 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0752596201029 0.0667982634062 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.237885369071 0.151304729494 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0279723032484 0.056905535591 49% => 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: 15.1 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.33 12.4159519038 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.68 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 78.4519038076 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.