The premise that limiting the amount of trash that will be accepted from each household might appear rests on a belief that doing so will compel humans to reduce wastage, which in turn will reduce pollution and exploitation of the environment. But however, I believe that such a proposal has a considerable amount of demerits that one cannot overlook.
Firstly, we need to ask if it is reasonable of the government or municipality to expect households to limit their wastage. While over time they might get used to this, there will be times when the wastage produced can go above the permitted threshold. In such a situation, there is no clear solution on how households can dispose the remaining waste. This might force them to take actions such as burning the waste in the backyards or littering in abandoned localities, which have both health and environmental impacts.
Also, the proposal only looks at reducing waste generation and not on recycling. While reducing wastage is important, it is equally important to encourage recycling and limit resource consumption. The municipality should support initiatives that promote the act of recycling and encourage users to consume resources that are recyclable. Further, it does not make sense if the government imposes a restriction on the amount of recyclable and reusable trash that they will accept.
Thirdly, the above statement has an inherent assumption that households are the biggest source of wastage. While households do account for a good amount of the generated waste, we should also hold industries, corporates and vehicles accountable for pollution. The government has to enforce stricter norms for safe wastage and sustainable usage of resources and also provide incentives for technological advancements with regards to the same.
In conclusion, while it is important to self regulate wastage produced in household, this cannot be the sole factor is relieving the environment form its problems. The government has to encourage recycling and invest in infrastructure to improve the current state of waste management.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 245, Rule ID: BUT_NEVERTHELESS[1]
Message: Use simply 'But'.
Suggestion: But
...on and exploitation of the environment. But however, I believe that such a proposal has a c...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 146, Rule ID: FROM_FORM[4]
Message: Did you mean 'from'?
Suggestion: from
...ole factor is relieving the environment form its problems. The government has to enc...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, look, so, third, thirdly, while, as to, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 58.6224719101 68% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1764.0 2235.4752809 79% => OK
No of words: 330.0 442.535393258 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34545454545 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26214759535 4.55969084622 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0014627594 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 215.323595506 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.566666666667 0.4932671777 115% => OK
syllable_count: 561.6 704.065955056 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => 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: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.9527348919 60.3974514979 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.6 118.986275619 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 23.4991977007 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.8 5.21951772744 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.215209710182 0.243740707755 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0628959020267 0.0831039109588 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0581215263258 0.0758088955206 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11252736292 0.150359130593 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0583215924263 0.0667264976115 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.27 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 100.480337079 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.