Environmental hazard has been one of the most severe issues for humans to address in the contemporary era. The excessive amount of waste that human beings produce every day has exceeded the ability that nature could digest through the ecological system. Among all types of waste, consumer-generated waste such as plastic bags and non-disposable materials takes up a huge portion. It is argued that by implanting policies to set a ceiling of loads of waste that the government will accept would reduce the amount of waste that consumers generate. While agreeing with this proposed statement that it might have some positive effect to reduce waste and improve our living environment, it is not the most direct way to address this issue.
The proposed policy cannot directly reduce the amount of waste that citizens produce because citizens might toss trash through an alternative way, such as throwing trash in nature. The amount of consumer-generated waste depends on the size of the population; accept less waste from consumers does not directly reduce the amount of trash. It is argued that not every citizen has the highest moral standard in protecting the environment. Restraining the amount of trash to dispose of requires the public to consume food and buy goods accordingly. When the number of goods purchased in based on the limits that the amount of waste will be accepted, people will lose their economic freedom by getting restrained on their spending power. Furthermore, the economy will get impacted by people spending less on transactions.
The duty to reduce the burden of environmental problems should not only fall on citizens’ shoulders. The government and big corporations should also initiate this responsibility. Industrial wastes are usually more detrimental and pollutive than household wastes. The government should place higher standards on factories that generate pollution on a daily basis. Factories like power plants have major negative impacts on their local communities. Placing regulations on factories that generate hazardous waste will force them to pay attention to better process and limit industrial waste.
It is more reasonable to say that a better efficient way to eliminate human waste is to reduce the amount that we generate, instead of the amount that governments will accept and process. Regardless of how much the amount of waste the government will accept will not change the amount of waste that has been generated. Thus, the government could adopt practical policies such as promoting recyclable materials that are not harmful to the environment to improve environmental health. Developing green energy could also diminish environmental pollution. Factories should start to invest in the innovative use of energy that provides a clean energy source to the public. Green energy produces little to no pollution to the environment that will result in fewer to no tax for corporations to pay. This mutual benefit can further improve community health and the company’s profit.
In sum, we should consider various factors to tackle our environmental issues. Reducing waste should not be the consumers' duty only. To maximize the outcome of reducing human-generated waste, the government, citizens, and factories should work together to achieve a greener future for humanity.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...most direct way to address this issue. The proposed policy cannot directly redu...
^^^^
Line 3, column 70, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'citizens'' or 'citizen's'?
Suggestion: citizens'; citizen's
...irectly reduce the amount of waste that citizens produce because citizens might toss tra...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 883, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...y health and the company's profit. In sum, we should consider various facto...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 114, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'consumers'' or 'consumer's'?
Suggestion: consumers'; consumer's
...ssues. Reducing waste should not be the consumers duty only. To maximize the outcome of r...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, furthermore, so, thus, while, 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: 24.0 12.4196629213 193% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 58.6224719101 121% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2825.0 2235.4752809 126% => OK
No of words: 522.0 442.535393258 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41187739464 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77988695657 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95264116843 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 261.0 215.323595506 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 891.9 704.065955056 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.7962230494 60.3974514979 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.62962963 118.986275619 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3333333333 23.4991977007 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.07407407407 5.21951772744 40% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 5.13820224719 272% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.226842029071 0.243740707755 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0626502636834 0.0831039109588 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.052857053422 0.0758088955206 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129045395108 0.150359130593 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0473046029727 0.0667264976115 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.1392134831 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.0 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 146.0 100.480337079 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.