The fancier the package of a product, the greater the sales number the get, this could be one of the root cause of overpackaging. And it seems time have prove it right, as we see from the shelves of retailers, every product are packed with conspicuous and colorful packaging. Obviously, more packaging means more trash, as the packaging serves no function other then boost the sales number, which puts a huge load of pressure on the government for waste management. The government should seek solution from the source of the issue, the manufacturer, since consumers are also victims of over packaging.
We all know that the purpose of a business is to make money, therefore it is not wrong to pursuit greater revenue, unless it causes problems that cannot be handled. In the case of over packaging and increasing trash, the government should regulate the manufacturer by asking them to reduce packing material or choose environment friendly materials. As we all know to eradicate a problem, you better address it from the source, which is the most effective way. The government should also educate and consumers to choose less packing but same quality products. Additionally, encourage consumers to buy product that utilize eco-friendly packaging. Solve the issue from the root is the most efficient and effective ways.
In the contrary, confining the amount of trash from each household could cause more issue. We all know that Roma is not build in a single day. It is impossible for consumer to reducing the trash they produce overnight. Therefore the trash that the government wouldn't process will be on the burden of the community. What could happen is that people start burning trash because the trash has no way to go, which produce an even worse problem to handle. Without proper policy, imposing strict limit would not solve the issue but can make it worse.
Nontheless, we all know the trash is a global thing that we need to face from government, manufacturer and also consumers. We can solve the problem by workign together.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 154, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'proved', 'proven'.
Suggestion: proved; proven
...f overpackaging. And it seems time have prove it right, as we see from the shelves of...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 163, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'rights'?
Suggestion: rights
...kaging. And it seems time have prove it right, as we see from the shelves of retailer...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 358, Rule ID: OTHER_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'other than'?
Suggestion: other than
...sh, as the packaging serves no function other then boost the sales number, which puts a hu...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 364, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'than'? 'than' is used for comparisons, 'then' is an expression of time.
Suggestion: than
... the packaging serves no function other then boost the sales number, which puts a hu...
^^^^
Line 5, column 220, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...ucing the trash they produce overnight. Therefore the trash that the government wouldnt p...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 260, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...Therefore the trash that the government wouldnt process will be on the burden of the co...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, so, then, therefore
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 33.0505617978 76% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 58.6224719101 68% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1703.0 2235.4752809 76% => OK
No of words: 342.0 442.535393258 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.97953216374 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30037696126 4.55969084622 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6819433277 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 215.323595506 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.538011695906 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 523.8 704.065955056 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.505791386 60.3974514979 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.6111111111 118.986275619 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 23.4991977007 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.66666666667 5.21951772744 32% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.237640231276 0.243740707755 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0718427585631 0.0831039109588 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0555801518187 0.0758088955206 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138839433603 0.150359130593 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0744919002354 0.0667264976115 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.1392134831 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.8420337079 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.1639044944 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 100.480337079 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.