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.
The consumer generated waste causes some environmental problems and the prompt suggests that cities should limit amount of trash they would accept from each household. However, restricting the amount of trash that will be accepted from each household would be detrimental than being beneficial due to two crucial reasons.
First, the implementation of the idea would lead people to dump their trash on the random locations. For the most households, the waste is produced because of their lifestyle, not because of something that’s malleable and extraneous, and hence people wouldn’t be able to decrease the amount of trash just because government puts a limit. Instead, people will dump the additional trash to the random places of the town, and as a result, the amount of trash wouldn’t change, and additional work would be needed to collect the trash around the town.
Secondly, the realization of the idea would predicate a decrease in the comfort of the living. As stated, the amount of trash produced directly depends on the lifestyles of the people. For that reason, if the people decrease the amount of waste, they need to compromise from their lifestyles, and this task could be impossible depending on the household. As an example, a household with more kids would produce more trash than a household without kids whether they try or not. Therefore, the implementation of the idea would be detrimental to some families which are more prone to the extra consumption.
Undeniably, the actualization of the idea would decrease the amount of the trash produced. However, there are numerous methods that would have the same benefits but without the harm of the idea. As an example, a tax proportional to the amount of trash produced can be implemented. The tax would dissuade people from producing extraneous rubbish to avoid paying extra tax, and the people would be able to get rid of their dross if they aren’t able to lessen their leftover production.
To sum up, the limiting the amount of trash that government will collect could have some beneficial effects, but it would cause some people to throw their trash into random locations of the town and would punish people who aren’t able to decrease their trash because of inherent aspects of the household. Overall, there are other methods which are impactful as much as the limitation but with lesser detriments, such as taxing, tax returns to people who produce lesser trash.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... to collect the trash around the town. Secondly, the realization of the idea wo...
^^^^
Line 8, column 477, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rns to people who produce lesser trash.
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, such as, as a result, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 33.0505617978 57% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2060.0 2235.4752809 92% => OK
No of words: 404.0 442.535393258 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09900990099 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48327461151 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69584684046 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 215.323595506 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.438118811881 0.4932671777 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 611.1 704.065955056 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 6.24550561798 16% => OK
Article: 12.0 4.99550561798 240% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => 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: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.6306729133 60.3974514979 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.75 118.986275619 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.25 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.21951772744 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 10.2758426966 29% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.219232106156 0.243740707755 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0878949485125 0.0831039109588 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0896047292367 0.0758088955206 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.152210280599 0.150359130593 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0883637708564 0.0667264976115 132% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.8420337079 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 100.480337079 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.