In 20 years there will be less pollution in the air than there is today.
Pollution control has been the hot topic of the 21st century. There has been a lot of money spent every year to curb the excessive amount of pollution growth that has taken place after the industrial revolution. Personally, I believe that there would still be more concentration of the pollution in the environment after 20 years than today. I feel this way for two reasons, which I will explore in the following essay.
To begin with, we know that population growth is a significant obstacle in reducing pollution. In the next 20 years, it is projected that the global population will exceed 9 billion. Feeding and nurturing this large population of humans is a task that is unfathomable by even the cutting edge researchers of resources management. Moreover, the living standards of people are uplifted at a tremendous rate in developing countries. As the living standards improve, the pollution per capita would increase. My personal experience is a compelling illustration of this. In my childhood, I lived in a society where most people didn't have a car. But, in a span of two decades, the current situation is that most of them have a car, and some people have more than one car. If all people had vehicles of their own, then the pollution would definitely increase.
Furthermore, the renewable resource industry is not supported well enough by the governments. They are facing sheer competition from non-renewable companies. The widespread opposition of solar and wind industries by the coal and oil companies reflects the issue precisely. For instance, whenever the government provides tax breaks to the natural energy companies, they get a strong rebuttal from the coal industry. One of the reasons is the jobs of people involved in coal companies would be risked because of a new industry growing out of nowhere. For example, most of the electric vehicles that were in use around me had been again replaced by engine vehicles. However, Tesla is one of the companies which is trying its best to make electric vehicles ubiquitous.
In conclusion, I firmly believe that pollution will not decrease in two decades from now. It is because of the growing population and the competition faced by polluting industries.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-03-20 | memi00 | 76 | view |
| 2022-03-20 | memi00 | 76 | view |
| 2021-10-08 | edsonsimoes | 70 | view |
| 2021-10-08 | devvratjoshi | 60 | view |
| 2021-10-08 | devvratjoshi | 70 | view |
- Our current way of life will have a negative impact on future generations 70
- Our current way of life will have a negative impact on future generations 73
- Reading Passage Many people are trying to reduce the amount of meat that they eat but they still crave meat products Scientists have recently developed methods to create simulated meats from vegetable protein that have the appearance taste and texture of 78
- In twenty years there will be fewer cars in use than there are today 80
- The outermost layer of skin the epidermis produces a variety of growths in animal and bird species Because dinosaurs were reptiles and modern reptiles have scales and armor plates on their skin it was long assumed that dinosaurs had the same type of skin 71
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 621, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... I lived in a society where most people didnt have a car. But, in a span of two decad...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, still, then, well, for example, for instance, i feel, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 15.1003584229 126% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 9.8082437276 71% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 13.8261648746 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.0286738351 100% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 43.0788530466 63% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 52.1666666667 92% => 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: 1857.0 1977.66487455 94% => OK
No of words: 369.0 407.700716846 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0325203252 4.8611393121 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38284983912 4.48103885553 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91243322943 2.67179642975 109% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 212.727598566 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.558265582656 0.524837075471 106% => OK
syllable_count: 583.2 618.680645161 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 9.59856630824 104% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.6003584229 107% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.1344086022 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.1923056691 48.9658058833 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 84.4090909091 100.406767564 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7727272727 20.6045352989 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.77272727273 5.45110844103 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 11.8709677419 76% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.85842293907 52% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.88709677419 225% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.195652699351 0.236089414692 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.049949315697 0.076458572812 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0810926496868 0.0737576698707 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132197043274 0.150856017488 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.105652467652 0.0645574589148 164% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 11.7677419355 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 58.1214874552 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.1575268817 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 10.9000537634 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.01818996416 105% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 86.8835125448 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.0537634409 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 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: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.