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.
No one can gainsay that in the contemporary societies, the amount of waste has been exponentially increasing. In this respect, some individuals contend that a strict regulation should be implemented to reduce waste production from consumers in town and cities. However, not everyone agrees with such idea. In some cases, the forceful law in waste restriction can lack the concern of marginalized people and increase unnecessary social unrest.
First and foremost, the stringent regulation for waste production can be beneficial to the efficacious reduction of waste. It is challenging to encourage people to decrease the amount of trash that they make, as it is a voluntary option. On the contrary, waste regulation can effectively curb the waste generation, as it is legally binding. If they exceed the limit of trash dumping, they might be fined, so they try to reduce waste production themselves. This would lead to effectual decrease in the amount of garage going to landfills, in conjunction with the reduction of waste combustion, following environmental hazards such as air contamination from the combustion. In general, the strict law for trash can create multiple benefits to the waste control.
However, what was alluded to above cannot be overgeneralized to all contexts. Alongside with the advantages, there are certainly disadvantageous aspects of this law. First of all, the regulation may neglect the marginalized in the society who do not have enough budget to reduce the amount of trash that they produce. In fact, people with enough wealth could try to buy waste processing products such as domestic processer of food waste. However, the poor may not be able to acquire those state-of-the-art technology to reduce waste, and by the regulation, they are forced to get fined by their uncontrollable waste. Therefore, the law implementation can hamper the livelihood of the poor in a society, and hence it ought to carefully examine its disadvantages.
Secondly, the law forcefully makes the people to participate in waste reduction, and the involuntary participation can result in social unrest. Imposition of waste regulation can be unnecessary when other alternatives are available, such as education, seminars, broadcasts to promote the benefits of waste reduction. Without the application of these methods, the rush in waste regulation can trigger people to feel unhappy and dissatisfied with the government, which could result in social conflicts and riots. Therefore, compulsory participation may create anti-governmental atmosphere in the society and undermine the national security.
Based on above discussion, there is no denying the facts that the hard approach for waste reduction can create positive effects in reducing the amount of trash and enhancing environmental benefits. However, it is also important to note that the same law possesses a potential to disregard the marginalized people in a society who cannot afford eco-friendly products to reduce waste like wealthy people but also to create unnecessary social problems. Therefore, the government should carefully examine the disadvantageous aspects of the law and resolve the relevant issues.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 142, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'encouraging'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'challenge' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: encouraging
...s reduction of waste. It is challenging to encourage people to decrease the amount of trash ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, in fact, in general, such as, first of all, in some cases, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.4196629213 177% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 33.0505617978 76% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 12.9106741573 225% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2710.0 2235.4752809 121% => OK
No of words: 491.0 442.535393258 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.51934826884 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70728369723 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22235122828 2.79657885939 115% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.474541751527 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 860.4 704.065955056 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.7940021685 60.3974514979 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.826086957 118.986275619 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.347826087 23.4991977007 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.52173913043 5.21951772744 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 5.13820224719 292% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.145071392837 0.243740707755 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.046931188545 0.0831039109588 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0402045286896 0.0758088955206 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0892993012524 0.150359130593 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0492191953588 0.0667264976115 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.8420337079 68% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.74 12.1639044944 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.05 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 136.0 100.480337079 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.