The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
Today we have a grave problem with consumer-generated waste in urban areas and many of us propose to impose strict limits on the amount of garbage which is accepted from each household. Although this idea has many proponents, I disagree with it because even if it works, it will not address the root of the problem. The reasons of my stance will be discussed in more details below.
To begin with, we should answer on a question: how people will react on this law? Perhaps they disobey to it intentionally or accidently. In this case, amount of garbage generated by people will exceed the recommended limits. In case, the additional trash is not accepted by a special service, residents may try to find an alternative way to dispatch it, for instance, by creating new scrape yards in the neighborhood, or by burning the trash. In both cases the actions will hurt environment; perhaps, the damage may be even more serious than before. Of course, an alternative exists, government may charge additional fee to take care about the surplus of the garbage but this action may bring unexpected results as well. For instance, if the size of fee is too small, people will not change their conduct and thus volume of garbage produced will be preserved. In case, the amount of money is too big, people will try to find alternative ways to dispatch the garbage from burning it to throwing it in water of local rivers. In other words, the implementation of the policy may not solve the problem.
However, even if we assume that the policy works properly, we will still face significant difficulties because the policy is not aimed at the root of the problem. To illustrate an idea, we may imagine that the policy is implemented in New York city, and it is accepted by residents unquestionably, the amount of garbage produced by the people will be enormous. For example, even if we accept five kilos of waste from each house hold per day, we have more than five millions households which are situated in the area. Consequently, the volume of garbage produced weekly is 175 000 000 kilos. This is a huge volume of waste which ought to be collected and stored in scrape yards. This garbage will poison the soil, the water and the air of the planet. In other words, the proposed policy does not combat the problem but only alleviate it. As a result, the policy cannot be perceived as the best policy.
Of course, you may aver that even alleviation of the grave problem is better than nothing and I concur with this position but we have a better option. We may create a policy which will address the core of the problem. Of course, this solution ought to be systematic. For instance, we will inevitably generate waste, so, we need to make this garbage less dangerous, for instance, we can use nature-friendly packages such as paper, and we may use bottles and items repeatedly and sort out garbage by its characteristics to be able to recycle it. All of those steps will allow us recycle the waste and thus combat the problem.
In conclusion, we often look for a simple solution such as an introduction of a new restriction; however, such policies often have many problems with their implementation, but even successful fulfillment will not combat the problem but only alleviate it. Consequently, only thoughtful policy which addresses the root of the problem may work. ________________
Comments
Hello.
Hello.
The idea was that
1) it may not work properly
2) even if it is work, we still have problem with waste. In other words, the usefulness of the policy is questionable because our garbage is highly danerous for nature/plastic cannot be decomposed, many new bulbs have mercury in them etc. / Consequently, the policy makes a big or huge pile of garbage smaller but nevertheless we still have the same probelm but in the smaller scale. Consequently, the policy cannot be considered as the best
3) because we can litteraly defeat the porblem if products of our infrastracture are created in such a way that allow us to compeletely decompose the waste or recycle them avoiding storage dangerous materials.
Is may stance correct?
Thank you.
No, it is on the wrong track.
No, it is on the wrong track. Read samples:
http://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-issue-task-essays/best-way-solve-environ…
http://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-issue-task-essays/best-way-solve-environ…
Hello. I still cannot see the
Hello. I still cannot see the problem with my idea in the second paragraph. I surmise that I made wrong accents and therefore did not manage to convey my thoughts properly. I rewrite it in more clear way with new accents and place below.
However, even if we assume that proposed policy works, we cannot call this policy as the best one because its implementation will create problems as well. Firstly, the realization of the policy will significantly complicate the work of the urban services; perhaps, each package of garbage should be weighed in order to check it that means a necessity to buy additional equipment. Consequently, the procedure of collection of the garbage will require more personnel and money. What is more, even if we assume that all households do not violate the law, perhaps, we will still have problem with storage of the garbage. In other words, instead of a huge pile of trash we will have a deal with a smaller one. As a result, the trash will continue to contaminate the soil, the water and the air near it. For instance, a Moscow's scrape yard is a huge mount which is seen and smelt from several kilometers and the possible implementation of the policy will only reduce the speed of its growth. Therefore, we cannot accept the proposed policy as the best one.
is it correct?
If it is not, please, help me to understand what is wrong with it. I honestly cannot see the flaw in my thoughts.
my idea are:
1) the policy may not work and it may encourage people to look for alternative ways of disposal of the trash.
2) even it is working, the policy does not solve the problem, the trash will poison the environment because it only slows down the process. Additionally to it, it will require additional investiments. Thus it is not the best solution.
3) an alternative solution of the porblem - recycling of the garbage which indeed tackle the problem.
Thank you.
p.s. I have read essays which you recommend me thank you.
The issues go here:
The issues go here:
'What is more, even if we assume that all households do not violate the law, perhaps, we will still have problem with storage of the garbage. In other words, instead of a huge pile of trash we will have a deal with a smaller one. As a result, the trash will continue to contaminate the soil, the water and the air near it. For instance, a Moscow's scrape yard is a huge mount which is seen and smelt from several kilometers and the possible implementation of the policy will only reduce the speed of its growth. Therefore, we cannot accept the proposed policy as the best one.'
it is not related to the storage of the trash. and why you think 'we will have a deal with a smaller one'?
flaws:
We didn't get the second argument. Whether people accept imposing strict limits on the amount of trash or not, the government has to put the trash somewhere.
-----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 584 350
No. of Characters: 2695 1500
No. of Different Words: 254 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.916 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.615 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.65 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 182 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.857 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.996 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.316 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.473 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.164 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5