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.
The claim that local government environmental intervention via restricting volume of household garbage pickup is the best solution to consumer-generated waste problem hinges on two groups of assumptions. As a result of operation complexities as discussed below, this essay will demonstrate that the statement may be found wanting in most scenarios.
The first major gap in the statement is that the majority of consumer-generated waste that is causing the problem is produced by local households. Taken at face value, this leads to the question of why is household waste a problem. Is it improper separation of garabage types? Inefficient trash process at the waste management plant? Or household waste naturally causing severe enviornmental damage? None of these potential issues are likely to be solved by limiting trash pickup. By comparison, if the percentage of consumer-generated wastes sectors are examined, one would no doubt come to the conclusion that household waste is the least environmentally impactful contributor. Take for example the life of a pencil. When it is purchased, receipt is printed, plastic bag is given for transportation and its packaging is disposed off. In contrast, the only “household waste” that is produced would be the shavings after sharpening. It is a fraction of the total consumer-generated wastes. In other words, although household trash contribute to the consumer-generated waste environmental problem, it is unlikely to be the most significant factor and therefore limiting trash pickup would not be the best solution to the problem.
Equally important, the is based on the assumption that government intervention will directly, positively improve the situation. As will be discussed below, that is an exceedingly positive outlook that is likely wrong. All of the complexities discussed above is the result of interaction between society, institutions and human psychology. Firstly, the statistics regarding household trash is amorphous. Blanket limitation of garbage acceptance will have little to no impact. What if average household trash generation never reaches the maximum trash acceptance in the first place? Then a reduction would have little to no impact on the environment. Additionally, what if there’s a minimum volume of household trash production just as a result of daily living? If the current acceptance volume is already barely meeting the generation rate, further reduction would do nothing but cause unnecessary grievance as trash pile up at home. Finally, what if people are simply resistant to change, would reduction do anything before the current government is voted out and the next leader restate the previous rate? All in all, the claim that government intervention can help the environment is contingent on the idea that household action would change, that may not necessarily be the case.
In summary, based on analysis of the consumer-generated waste assumptions as well as household behavior, the logical conclusion is that the statement is unsubstantiated based on common sense. To truly solve the enviornmental problems caused by waste byproduct, other avenues of reduction should be examined.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Equally,
...t be the best solution to the problem. Equally important, the is based on the assumpti...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 218, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: All the
... positive outlook that is likely wrong. All of the complexities discussed above is the res...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, if, look, may, regarding, so, then, therefore, well, for example, in contrast, in summary, no doubt, as a result, as well as, in other words, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.5258426966 179% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 14.8657303371 40% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 58.6224719101 99% => OK
Nominalization: 35.0 12.9106741573 271% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2706.0 2235.4752809 121% => OK
No of words: 486.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.56790123457 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69525374022 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.40001633734 2.79657885939 122% => OK
Unique words: 243.0 215.323595506 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 861.3 704.065955056 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.7628027308 60.3974514979 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.222222222 118.986275619 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 23.4991977007 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.03703703704 5.21951772744 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.338327946543 0.243740707755 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0896735149156 0.0831039109588 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0645283928571 0.0758088955206 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.205458621436 0.150359130593 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0734407795342 0.0667264976115 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 48.8420337079 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.73 12.1639044944 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.98 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 137.0 100.480337079 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 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: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.