“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 statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Environmental pollution is one the most greatest problems right now, it is even a threat to the habitability of earth and the survival of mankind. The statement says that to solve environmental problems caused by waste is to impose limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household. Superficially it seems a good plan, but in my opinion just imposing a limit on the amount of trash acceptance will not do much good in the long run.
First of all, one of the problem with this plan is that limiting how much trash will be accepted will not reduce the amount of trash produced. Consumers will consume, trash will be produced. The plan that author suggested is just to ignoring the fact that these trash even exists, if it crosses the limits. This will not be helpful to the city or the people, or the environment. People will have to get rid of those surfeit of trash, that the city did not accepted because apparently the limit has exceeded. They will just throw them away if itgets too problematic. And if this happens it will only execerbate the situation, because of not going through the process proper disposal of the trash.
In my opinion I think that loooking for a better solution like increasing public awareness, researching for the developement of the disposal process to make it more efficient, recycling, or even imposing fine to control the waste would be of much more help than the method that the author suggested.
If the people are more aware of the danger of these trashes, and the risk it poses on the environment, they will be more careful with the wastes they produce. This will help even if a little bit with the situation. And if it is not, then the more effective method would be establishing law to fine or punish people who does not follow the laws with waste production and disposal. It seems a bit harsh, but it is for the greater good. If the environment becomes more polluted that will be a much more harsh situation for humans.
Also there should be more research on how to get rid of the trash and waste while keeping the pollution at it's minimum. There are seven billion people on earth, we can not just expect that by not accepting the trash we will be able to get rid of these problems. Recycling, and using biodegradable materials would of much help to deal with this situation. Recycling will help us by reducing the production of waste, and biodegradables will be helpful if we can use them to replace plastics and polyethenes because degradable materials will be much easier to dispose of, and this will also lessen the pollution of environment.
In conclusion I'd like to say that the process that the author suggested could worsen the situation we are in right now, let alone being helpful to solve environmental problems. Instead, we should work on how to lessen the amount of waste, and if it is not possible than how to at least get rid of them without endangering the environment, and keeping the pollution as low and controlled possible.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 36, Rule ID: MOST_SUPERLATIVE[1]
Message: Use only 'greatest' (without 'most') when you use the superlative.
Suggestion: greatest
Environmental pollution is one the most greatest problems right now, it is even a threat...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 36, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'most the greatest'.
Suggestion: most the greatest
Environmental pollution is one the most greatest problems right now, it is even a threat...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 457, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'accept'
Suggestion: accept
...surfeit of trash, that the city did not accepted because apparently the limit has exceed...
^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 185, Rule ID: LITTLE_BIT[1]
Message: Reduce redundancy by using 'little' or 'bit'.
Suggestion: little; bit
... they produce. This will help even if a little bit with the situation. And if it is not, t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 15, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...h more harsh situation for humans. Also there should be more research on how to...
^^^^
Line 15, column 308, Rule ID: MODAL_OF[1]
Message: It's never correct to use "of" after a modal verb. Use 'would have', or, in informal register, 'would've'.
Suggestion: would have; would've
...ling, and using biodegradable materials would of much help to deal with this situation. ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 19, column 15, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: I'd
...ion of environment. In conclusion Id like to say that the process that the a...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, first, if, so, then, while, at least, i think, in conclusion, first of all, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 26.0 12.4196629213 209% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 33.0505617978 145% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2490.0 2235.4752809 111% => OK
No of words: 532.0 442.535393258 120% => OK
Chars per words: 4.68045112782 5.05705443957 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80261649409 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63509097012 2.79657885939 94% => OK
Unique words: 223.0 215.323595506 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.419172932331 0.4932671777 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 762.3 704.065955056 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59117977528 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 12.0 1.77640449438 676% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.3232571078 60.3974514979 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.181818182 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1818181818 23.4991977007 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.09090909091 5.21951772744 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 5.13820224719 272% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.204485527933 0.243740707755 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0793700388984 0.0831039109588 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.086466236419 0.0758088955206 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122425735961 0.150359130593 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0893031746852 0.0667264976115 134% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.1392134831 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.04 48.8420337079 131% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.16 12.1639044944 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.74 8.38706741573 92% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 100.480337079 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.