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.
In today’s ever-evolving world, our dependence on consumer goods has increased multifold over the past few years since the capitalist economies rose. Its most significant result is seen on the amount of waste generated from each household, proper disposal of which continues to be a huge concern for big towns and cities. I strongly agree with the claim that imposing stricter limits on the amount of trash accepted from each household. This measure, I believe, would definitely help to solve the environmental concerns arising out of the copious amounts of waste being collected each day due to the following reasons.
A lot of consumers indulge in environmentally-unaware consumption of goods and services, leading to the generation of large daily wastes. Imposing such a restriction would force them to be a little more conscious while going out. For example, if during a single trip to the shopping mall, one visits a few shops to buy some stuff, it will soon fill their hands with a dozen bags - some made of plastic while some made of paper. Half of those bags only contain a single item, is of no use when it reaches back home, and is thrown away in the trash the next morning. A conscious decision would be to carry a big bag from home to store all the shopping in and to avoid taking a carry bag from each shop. As illustrared in the example, such small habit changes would eventually lead to lesser consumer waste generated and would give rise to a better environment to live in, which is claimed in the prompt.
Secondly, there is no proper waste organization methodology followed by maximum households today. All kinds of waste - be it biodegradable, non-biodegradable, toxic, or medical waste, are dumped in a single bin and handed over to the municipal trucks in the morning. It also makes the segregation, and thereby disposal difficult and unnecessarily delayed. Restricting the amount of waste allowed will promote the citizens to perform a preliminary waste separation, and take care of some types of waste, probably reuse or recycle, on their own and not dump everything for the city to take care of. For example, food waste like leftover vegetables, stale fruits, or rotten eggs, can easily be planted in the backyard to provide natural manure to the soil. An aware resident would only give the waste which they cannot take care of themselves to the city, like plastic boxes, metal cans, etc which need to be disposed of properly by the authorities. In this way, a limit on the amount of waste that can be submitted would reduce the turnaround time needed to dispose off and decompose wastes.
However, some might argue that such a restriction would lead to excess amounts of domestic waste lying unattended in households where the people were not able to limit their daily waste generation. It is true that initially, not everyone would be able to submit to the limits imposed, but this inability would be enough motivation for them to try even harder and make smart environmentally-aware decisions to reduce their domestic waste. In the longer run, this practice would benefit everyone personally as well as environmentally as well. In conclusion, the claim that imposing limits on the domestic waste accepted from each household will help solve environmental problems is justified and well reasonable because of the reasons enlisted above.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, second, secondly, so, well, while, for example, in conclusion, as well as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 87.0 58.6224719101 148% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2810.0 2235.4752809 126% => OK
No of words: 564.0 442.535393258 127% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98226950355 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87326216964 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9084856955 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 300.0 215.323595506 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531914893617 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 899.1 704.065955056 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.9156932612 60.3974514979 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.80952381 118.986275619 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.8571428571 23.4991977007 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.19047619048 5.21951772744 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => 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: 0.270121763282 0.243740707755 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0815960012808 0.0831039109588 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.073775455037 0.0758088955206 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175846300509 0.150359130593 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.066908415278 0.0667264976115 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.9 12.1639044944 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.82 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 139.0 100.480337079 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.