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.
Over the past several decades, problems pertaining to the environment have been on a precipitous rise. The prompt claims a seemingly plausible remedy that might mitigate some of the environmental ills. However, I mostly disagree with the claim that placing limits on the amount of consumer-generated trash that can be collected from households could ameliorate the current daunting situation. But I do concede that it might give us some minuscule benefits.
First of all, the claim is bound to yield only negligible improvements because the assumption that the majority of environmental ills are due to household waste is not sound. The unprecedented climate change we are witnessing--sporadic spells of rain, sea level rising, melting of polar ice caps, extreme temperatures-- are largely due to greenhouse gases that trap the solar heat, preventing it from escaping the earth's atmosphere. And one of the biggest contributors of these greenhouse gases are vehicular and industry emissions. Also responsible is the rapid reduction of our forest cover which helps alleviate some of the ill-effects of those greenhouse gases. Putting limits on trash that will be collected from households would do only little. Also, it's unauspicious because the trash collected form us is safely disposed by the municipal authorities anyway.
Secondly, if the remedy claimed by this prompt is implemented, many people would resort to non-standard means of disposing off the waste. And this,without a modicum of doubt, is going to be detrimental to our environment. For example, what would happen if people living nearby a water body, say a lake, start dumping the trash near the shores or in the water itself. This is only going to more pollute the already polluted water due to untreated disposal of industrial waste. Rather than forcing people to resort to these unscientific means of disposal of garbage, it's better that pertinent governing bodies collect it from houses and dispose it with standard practices.
However, I do agree that it might yield some benefits, though mostly short-term, by discouraging the people from generating more trash. But this is only possible when strict checks are implemented regarding the unlawful disposal of the remaining trash that's not accepted by the germane authorities. But, like I mentioned earlier, this would not help a lot with the prevailing environmental problems as it's not a major source of problems.
In conclusion, I would like to say that this well-intentioned claim is not a plausible remedy capable of providing considerable benefits. We should rather focus on the more prominent causes--industry and vehicular emission, deforestation--to mitigate the environmental ills.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 171, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...ly plausible remedy that might mitigate some of the environmental ills. However, I mostly d...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 415, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'earths'' or 'earth's'?
Suggestion: earths'; earth's
...r heat, preventing it from escaping the earths atmosphere. And one of the biggest cont...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 534, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...s are vehicular and industry emissions. Also responsible is the rapid reduction of o...
^^^^
Line 3, column 616, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
... our forest cover which helps alleviate some of the ill-effects of those greenhouse gases. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 147, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , without
...ans of disposing off the waste. And this,without a modicum of doubt, is going to be detr...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 253, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
...nlawful disposal of the remaining trash thats not accepted by the germane authorities...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, anyway, but, first, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, well, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 58.6224719101 99% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2299.0 2235.4752809 103% => OK
No of words: 424.0 442.535393258 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42216981132 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53775939005 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21051385418 2.79657885939 115% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.549528301887 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 712.8 704.065955056 101% => 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: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.2450844727 60.3974514979 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.95 118.986275619 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.9 5.21951772744 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.151076676391 0.243740707755 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0425404828064 0.0831039109588 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0426941181804 0.0758088955206 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0813923147105 0.150359130593 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0401593794892 0.0667264976115 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.1392134831 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.8420337079 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.22 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 100.480337079 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.