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 agre

Essay topics:

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 claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

People nowadays are more aware of environmental problems than we were decades ago, and therefore proposed that towns and cities to enforce strict limitations on the amount of consumer-generated trash they would accept from each household. I agree with the principle that we need to attend to environmental issues caused by trash disposal, I totally don’t agree with employing limitations on the amount of trash each household dispose. I’ll first illustrate the difficulties and possible severe consequences of the policy if adopted by government officials, and then suggest possible solutions to solve the problem in the claim. Moreover, I’d like to discuss views that would challenge my position and suggestions and my point of view towards these criticisms.

First and foremost, the implementation of such policy and its enforcement can take very long time, and it can be pricy to redesign the waste disposal system to adopt the new policy. Adopting the new policy means massive purchases of new garbage trucks and the establishment of a system to measure the volume of trash each household dispose. Hearings and votes need to be conducted to see the public’s consensus on spending the government funding on reducing the quota of their waste produced each day. On the one hand, the public have a great chance to reject the policy in that it doesn’t provide positive incentives for them. On the other hand, even if the public are willing to adopt the policy, it can take even longer for the new system to be ready for execution. However beneficial to the environment the policy can be, the prolonged process dwindles the effectiveness it promotes.

On the other hand, the policy potentially would increase the volume of illegal disposed trash, which would further exacerbate environmental problems. Because the policy curbs the amount of trash each household can dispose, it doesn’t mean households would decease the amount of trash they generate, and households may inappropriately dump their extra trash. The unprocessed trash has the possibility to create more pollution, for example, the liquid in batteries can contaminate soil and water and be brought into grown vegetables, rivers and seas when travels with water. If there is no facility to attend to the extra amount of trash, illegal and improper dumping can cause much more damage to the environment as well as ourselves.

With these being said, it doesn’t mean there aren’t better and friendlier ways to reduce the amount of trash. The government should generate policies that can create positive incentives for garbage disposal industries and consumers to create more eco-friendly ways to dispose trash. For instance, the government can promote tax relaxation on industries that promote and participate in effective composting products to reduce the amount of burnt landfills, as well as reduce the charge of trash disposal fees on families who participate in trash composting programs. When coupled with positive incentives, policies on trash disposal can be more effective and easier to exert.

Some may say that eco-friendly policies, such as the promotion of trash composting products, also take long time to the fulfillment and are expensive. First, I’d like to argue that compared to expense on dealing with illegal and improper dumped trash, the cost of promoting waste composting products is way lower, and it can be paid by private sectors. Second, it may take a long time for individuals to adopt the new trash policies, but the positive incentives they create would make people more aware of environmental issues.

To conclude, I don’t agree with the brutal claim that the government should impose policies to limit the amount of trash families can dump, for it is not cost-effective and can cause further damage. I believe policies with positive incentives, such as promoting trash composting products, can better solve environmental issues caused by consumer-generated trash.

Votes
Average: 7.5 (3 votes)
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 10, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'saith', 'says'.
Suggestion: saith; says
...fective and easier to exert. Some may say that eco-friendly policies, such as the...
^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, then, therefore, well, for example, for instance, such as, as well as, on the other hand

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 27.0 12.4196629213 217% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 33.0505617978 109% => OK
Preposition: 82.0 58.6224719101 140% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3389.0 2235.4752809 152% => OK
No of words: 633.0 442.535393258 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35387045814 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.01592376844 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97084539294 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 277.0 215.323595506 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.437598736177 0.4932671777 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1061.1 704.065955056 151% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.0743251805 60.3974514979 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.347826087 118.986275619 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.5217391304 23.4991977007 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.34782608696 5.21951772744 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
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: 0.230560543836 0.243740707755 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0748558714293 0.0831039109588 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0669627713148 0.0758088955206 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136660541589 0.150359130593 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0626117412581 0.0667264976115 94% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 14.1392134831 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.8420337079 73% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 153.0 100.480337079 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => 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.