Some people think that the government should increase the cost of fuel for cars and other vehicles to solve environmental problem. Give your option.
Nowadays, have many people believed that the authorities should support the cost of fuel for cars and other vehicles transport to solve environment problem. This essay will examine both sides of the argument before conclusion is drawn.
Admittedly, there are some arguments in favor of people think that government increasing the cost of fuel. First, petrol is the part important for moving traffic among transportation area regardless of kind of transport and also the problem government. If national authorities raised taxes on petrol, this would address two environmental issue. This increasing petrol support, presumably, tends not only to increase the overall of gasoline rate of people life but also to motorists would limit the number and length of their journey to compensate for the extra expense. Moreover, from the perspective of freight services, more goods would have to be transported by rail rather than by truck. Both these measures would cut down on emissions from vehicles and help to reduce the greenhouse effect. Second, increase the cost of fuel would probably result in a public transport provision, as people would still need to travel or to work, school and shop or hospitals. Moreover, this cost would support for lower-income people or building school for less privileged yet gifted student. In fact, skilled and environmental human capital is imperative to foster economic growth and technological in any nations.
Nevertheless, the resultant problem would be far more significant than the minor benefits once government increase petrol for vehicles. First, increase petrol for all people would likely correspond with a tremendous financial strain on human. Nowadays, in this modern life, have many technology devices and also have many transport. Almost, everyone have their own vehicles for travel, work or go to school, having their own means of transportation is very convenient because when people using the public transport system will sometimes waste their time and will have to waiting a long time for the car to pick up, meaning that, the increase in petrol is putting pressure on them. Second, increase the petrol would tempt many disadvantages including pursuing up the price of goods in circulation or putting pressure on in flatiron, thereby adding great burdens for people and their economic and potentially wasting time that these people could have spent pursuing more suitable transportation paths. It, instead, would be a more financial viable option if the resources were focused on supporting deforestation for environmental.
I were discussed both sides of the argument. In my perspective, this argument have advantages outweigh disadvantages.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-10-03 | Trần Ánh Vy | 73 | view |
| 2022-10-03 | Trần Ánh Vy | 63 | view |
- Nowadays people depend on technology for leisure activities Is this a positive or negative development 89
- The diagram show the space journey of Soyuz rocket Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- Some people say we do not need printed papers newspaper anymore as there are other means To what extent do you agree or disagree 73
- Nowadays most people try to balance between work and other parts of their lives Unfortunately not many achieve this balance What are the problems with this Suggest some solutions to solve the problems 84
- The table below shows population figures for 4 countries for 2003 and projected figures for 2025 and 2050 Population million Countries 2003 2025 2050 Argentina 34 48 62 Indonesia 238 274 312 Italy 54 47 45 Republic of Korea 48 52 52 67
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 603, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...pense. Moreover, from the perspective of freight services, more goods would have ...
^^
Line 3, column 317, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun transport seems to be countable; consider using: 'many transports'.
Suggestion: many transports
...e many technology devices and also have many transport. Almost, everyone have their own vehicl...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 3, Rule ID: PERS_PRONOUN_AGREEMENT_SENT_START[3]
Message: Did you mean 'was'?
Suggestion: was
...ing deforestation for environmental. I were discussed both sides of the argument. I...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, still, in fact, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 7.85571142285 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 18.0 10.4138276553 173% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 41.998997996 121% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2275.0 1615.20841683 141% => OK
No of words: 419.0 315.596192385 133% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42959427208 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52432199235 4.20363070211 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86936840507 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 176.041082164 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.551312649165 0.561755894193 98% => OK
syllable_count: 693.0 506.74238477 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 76.2028929006 49.4020404114 154% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.736842105 106.682146367 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0526315789 20.7667163134 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.26315789474 7.06120827912 60% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.278869480303 0.244688304435 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0914132852116 0.084324248473 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107120056179 0.0667982634062 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168669661616 0.151304729494 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.108768901121 0.056905535591 191% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 13.0946893788 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.84 8.58950901804 103% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 78.4519038076 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.