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. Moreover, whenever governments support the new forms of energy, the people affected by the competition show up first to bring such initiatives down without even allowing them to originate. 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. So, if the renewable sector is increasing its production, the coal industry would have to face a crisis, ending up their employees and dependents jobs. 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 |
- Among the intriguing mysteries that the dinosaurs have left for us one of the most persistent is what the arms of Tyrannosaurus Rex T rex were used for A recent presentation to the American Geological Society presented evidence to support the idea that th 63
- The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment 16
- Our current way of life will have a negative impact on future generations 73
- In 20 years there will be less pollution in the air than there is today 63
- In 20 years there will be less pollution in the air than there is today 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 622, 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, first, 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 : 20.0 15.1003584229 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 13.8261648746 43% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.0286738351 100% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 43.0788530466 70% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 52.1666666667 109% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 8.0752688172 310% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2150.0 1977.66487455 109% => OK
No of words: 423.0 407.700716846 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08274231678 4.8611393121 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53508145475 4.48103885553 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91403932193 2.67179642975 109% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 212.727598566 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.54609929078 0.524837075471 104% => OK
syllable_count: 671.4 618.680645161 109% => 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: 7.0 3.08781362007 227% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 3.51792114695 142% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6003584229 117% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.1344086022 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.8212488336 48.9658058833 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.5833333333 100.406767564 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.625 20.6045352989 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.58333333333 5.45110844103 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
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: 0.174835486441 0.236089414692 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0457868727223 0.076458572812 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0788581105139 0.0737576698707 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131339634364 0.150856017488 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.106603135774 0.0645574589148 165% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 11.7677419355 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 58.1214874552 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.1575268817 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 10.9000537634 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.01818996416 105% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 86.8835125448 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.0537634409 88% => 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: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.