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.
Environment pollution is one of the biggest issues faced by major cities in the world. The burnt of environmental pollution exacerbated by climate change has brought about various health hazards, that has affected lives of city residents. It has become mandatory to mitigate pollution and its effects to establish healthy society, and reducing the amount of trash per household might sound a plausible solution. However, only restricting the amount of trash from each household would never be a plausible solution, and doing so might invite other negative consequences that in turn may exacerbate the present conditions.
Firstly, the amount of consumer-generated waste from each households solely depends upon the number of household members in each house. It would never be suitable impose a same restriction to a household consisting of very few members and the household consisting of higher family members. If such restrictions are imposed, people can rarely compromising to alter their consumption pattern, may adopt illegitimate manner of waste disposal that may harm environment more profoundly. In Nepal, for example, in places where government collects money for disposing the municipal wastes, poorer population tap into illegitimate method to avoid charges. As a result, there are streets, rivers and public parks that are littered with piles of consumer-generated wastes. If simply applying charges can bring this condition in Nepal, what would imposing restriction on the amount of wastes itself would invite?
We can, nevertheless, have many alternatives to this restriction that has proved very beneficial in different cities (in most developed countries like Japan and Singapore), and have provided many complementary benefits, in addition to safe wastes disposal. In these cities, government mostly collect wastes from people (whatsoever be the amount) and segregate them as biodegradable and non-degradable wastes, after which bio-degradable wastes are used to produce bio-gas and bio-fertilizers and non- degradable wastes are recycled and reused. In this way, consumers are given freedom to produce the amount of wastes they want to, and in addition, economic benefits is being realized through various products made after the processing of these wastes.
Finally, from bird’s-eye view, though, it may seem plausible to restrict the amount of wastes to mitigate environment problems in cities, a closer look may reveal very different scenario. So, it is better to give freedom to people to produce the amount of waste they want to, and then use collected waste material to produce different useful products: bio-gas, fertilizers etc.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Environmental
environmental pollution exacerbated by climate change...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 837, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'impose'
Suggestion: impose
...ing this condition in Nepal, what would imposing restriction on the amount of wastes its...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 143, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...mitigate environment problems in cities, a closer look may reveal very different ...
^^
Line 7, column 384, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...eful products: bio-gas, fertilizers etc.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, however, if, look, may, nevertheless, so, then, for example, in addition, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.5258426966 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 58.6224719101 96% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2182.0 2235.4752809 98% => OK
No of words: 386.0 442.535393258 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.65284974093 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43248042346 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07652167832 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 215.323595506 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.582901554404 0.4932671777 118% => OK
syllable_count: 684.0 704.065955056 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.2370786517 69% => 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: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.4088007293 60.3974514979 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 155.857142857 118.986275619 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.5714285714 23.4991977007 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.85714285714 5.21951772744 151% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.260438545228 0.243740707755 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0886679159053 0.0831039109588 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0589571296202 0.0758088955206 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.146719772566 0.150359130593 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0326199859371 0.0667264976115 49% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.0 14.1392134831 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 27.15 48.8420337079 56% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.1743820225 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.79 12.1639044944 130% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.84 8.38706741573 117% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 100.480337079 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.7820224719 136% => 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: 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.