Many companies sell product or services but a the same time cause environmental damage. Someone said it can be stopped by asked them to pay a penalty, such as a higher tax when they cause the environmental damage. Other said there are better ways to stop them from harming the environment. What o you think is the best way to prevent the environment from deteriorating?
In today's convoluted world, environmental issues are created by companies are one of the controversial topics among people. I strongly agree that government should impose a higher tax when they damaging the environment. In what follows, I will pinpoint the most irrefutable reasons.
To begin with, some products play an important role in people's lives and their producing should not be halted. To elaborate on, imposing a higher taxes not only provide an opportunity for society to have these indispensable goods but also companies are obliged to reduce their contribution to decrease the pollution. Accordingly, owing to the higher taxes, they are enforced to change their methods to produce goods or buy new equipment, which create less damage. For example, there is a company to produce plastic in our living area. The government installed a sensor in order to measure the contamination index, accordingly, by increasing it from the normal state, government enhances their taxes. Consequently, they bought new and advanced equipment’s, which do not damage the environment much. As a result, higher taxes can be guaranteed both people's needs and protection of the environment.
Apart from decreasing pollution, the second debatable point is that some people believe that governments cannot find a permanent solution to solve this problem basically, and earning money are the main purpose of them through imposing a higher taxes. However, others believe that the earned money could be invested in research and development of renewable sources energy resulting in eliminate or at least mitigate the detrimental effect of what is produced by companies. For this reason, I take the former viewpoint with the pinch of salt and claim that the latter proposal can be a good idea and close to reality. Hence, I do believe that the more government acquire money, the more they can reduce fossil fuel, which they are the main sources of pollution. By way of illustration, according to the survey conducted by the University of Tehran, our government could install 1000 windmill by the money they earn from the taxes. As a result, the taxes can have a positive contribution to reducing of the fossil fuel, which company are using them.
To wrap it up, by considering all aforementioned reasons, one soon realizes the positive importance of a higher taxes on decreasing the environmental damage. Thus, in the first place, the companies are forced to use sophisticated tools which mitigate the production of harmful substances, and in the second place, these amount of money could be consumed on renewable sources energy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 882, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'windmill' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'windmills'.
Suggestion: windmills
...hran, our government could install 1000 windmill by the money they earn from the taxes. ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, consequently, first, hence, however, second, so, thus, apart from, at least, for example, as a result, to begin with, in the first place, in the second place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 15.1003584229 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 9.8082437276 112% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 13.8261648746 80% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 43.0788530466 70% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 52.1666666667 111% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 8.0752688172 272% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2208.0 1977.66487455 112% => OK
No of words: 420.0 407.700716846 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25714285714 4.8611393121 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52701905584 4.48103885553 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95641429565 2.67179642975 111% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 212.727598566 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538095238095 0.524837075471 103% => OK
syllable_count: 700.2 618.680645161 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 9.59856630824 83% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 12.0 4.94265232975 243% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.2723163991 48.9658058833 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.666666667 100.406767564 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3333333333 20.6045352989 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0555555556 5.45110844103 184% => 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 : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.182583458197 0.236089414692 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0615262359701 0.076458572812 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0490995851608 0.0737576698707 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120443881558 0.150856017488 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0171507363206 0.0645574589148 27% => 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: 15.0 11.7677419355 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 58.1214874552 68% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 10.1575268817 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 10.9000537634 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.01818996416 115% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 86.8835125448 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.002688172 90% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => 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: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.