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.
Since the industrial revolution and the explosion in economic development, people now have more buying power than they ever had before. However, as the years pass, significant environmental problems have emerged and climate issues such as climate change and waste management have become a hot topic issue in cities and towns. The prompt says that in order to hasten the worsening of environmental problems, cities and towns should limit the amount of garbage that is collected from households. I mostly disagree with this proposition for two reasons and agree with it for one reason.
Firstly, if cities and towns limit the amount of garbage accepted it is probable that some homes will limit their waste. For example, people could limit their waste production to avoid excess garbage from piling up on their sidewalk. This would include change of habits such as reducing the amount of junk food consumed which require a lot of packaging, or holding on to old furniture for a longer period of time. Since people are limiting the amount that they buy and throw away, environmental problems would be lessened.
However, though many households would reduce the amount they consume and throw away, this proposal could backfire when a significant number of people in other cities and towns try to improperly dispose of garbage themselves. For instance, some households may drive out to quiet areas or rivers to dispose of their garbage there rather than giving it to their municipalities who are trained to handle garbage properly in recycling centers. Thus, environmental problems will only be exacterbated because it is not likely that rubbish in the river and in quiet areas will find their way to a recycling center where it is the most ecological place to throw away trash.
Finally, this plan would not be the best plan because household sizes are diverse and it is not fair to compare households with many members versus only one or two members. To illustrate, say the city here wants to take only three ten gallon bags of trash per household per week and there are several ten member households in one part of the city and several one member households in another. It is simply not fair to ten member households to have to limit their trash when they are being as ecological as they could with only two ten gallon bags per week over their limit when a single person living in a condo is very wasteful and throws away twenty ten gallon bags per week. If this proposal is modified in some way, such as an adjustment to household size, then it would be more fair to everyone.
In conclusion, this is a complex problem where no one extreme can be taken to approach this problem. Though a limit on the amount of rubbish collected from households is one solution to solving environmental problems, it is not the best solution and more solutions should be sought out for.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 399, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...olding on to old furniture for a longer period of time. Since people are limiting the amount t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, so, then, thus, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 33.0505617978 109% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 58.6224719101 106% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2388.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 492.0 442.535393258 111% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85365853659 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70967865282 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54881614581 2.79657885939 91% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 215.323595506 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.455284552846 0.4932671777 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 754.2 704.065955056 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 53.4636959254 60.3974514979 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.470588235 118.986275619 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.9411764706 23.4991977007 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.35294117647 5.21951772744 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.255092628692 0.243740707755 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0881960439689 0.0831039109588 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0439436940132 0.0758088955206 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149819834421 0.150359130593 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0421876335034 0.0667264976115 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.1392134831 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.44 12.1639044944 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.88 8.38706741573 94% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 100.480337079 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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.