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 environment is depleting day-by-day, and it of humungous importance to come up with some kind of approach for management. I disagree with the prompt that the best solution for eradicating environmental problems due to consumer-generated waste would be to impose strict limits on the amount of trash accepted by the authorities. Following are the two reasons and a concession supporting this thesis.
First of all, I sincerely believe that instead for directly imposing a stringent limit for accepting the amount of trash from each household will not help much in controlling the consumer-generated waste. Each household comprises of different members quantitatively, will have different amounts of household trash generated, and putting a severe limit would be unfair to some. Additionally, in today's sophisticated and diverse environment, where people belonging to different cultures reside at a given place, it is not in the favour of few to impose this limit, as some cultures rely on more in packaged food will in fact have more trash. Consequently, instead of putting a curb on amount of trash, a more realistic idea would be to force the people to separate out the wet and dry trash. If someone fails to do that, should have a hefty fine imposed. For instance, if a given city who mandates it's residents to separate the dry and wet trash, which would be easier for the authorities to process, will have less environmental problems than a city which retrains the quantity of trash accepted from each household where the residents resort to burning the excess amount. Therefore, cutting-off the limits over the trash would be helpful to both the authorities and the residents, and directly helpful to the environment as well.
Second of all, a much better way for a city to solve it's trash problems would be to encourage recycling. The separation of trash into dry and wet, makes it easier for the authorities to process the dry trash like cans, plastic, metal scrap etc. and recycle them. This will not only be salubrious to the environment, but will also give rise to an eco-friendly industry. The wet trash can also be utilised in farmlands as organic manure. So recycling will not only turn out to be eco-friendly for the authorities, but a profitable entity for those participating in this industry. For example, there have been numerous efforts made by the environmentalists to practice recycling, since we have started to recognise the environmental problems. There has been an abundant research conducted in this area, and a lot of Non-Government Organisations are also working towards this cause as well. Thus, a more viable option for solving the trash problems would be start recycling the waste rather than putting curbs on the quantity of the waste produced per household.
Finally, some may argue that putting a stringent restrictions over the households encourages the residents to be more vigilant towards the amount of trash produced per household. But, similar can be achieved through implementing penalties as well as encouraging the people to participate more in eco-friendly ways of waste management. Thus, the restrictions might seem valid in some peculiar scenarios but are not pragmatic.
In conclusion, it is indispensable for the authorities to come out with some kind of plan for waste management. Therefore, penalising and encouraging the process of recycling seems to be the better approach, rather than putting a stringent limit over the amount of trash produced per household.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...a concession supporting this thesis. First of all, I sincerely believe that i...
^^^^
Line 3, column 225, Rule ID: COMPRISES_OF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'comprises' or 'consists of'?
Suggestion: comprises; consists of
...onsumer-generated waste. Each household comprises of different members quantitatively, will ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... helpful to the environment as well. Second of all, a much better way for a c...
^^^^
Line 5, column 720, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
..., since we have started to recognise the environmental problems. There has been a...
^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...of the waste produced per household. Finally, some may argue that putting a s...
^^^^
Line 9, column 296, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...amount of trash produced per household.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, if, may, second, so, therefore, thus, well, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, kind of, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 82.0 58.6224719101 140% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2959.0 2235.4752809 132% => OK
No of words: 571.0 442.535393258 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18213660245 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88831323574 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1128925977 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 215.323595506 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.444833625219 0.4932671777 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 927.0 704.065955056 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.9725282836 60.3974514979 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.291666667 118.986275619 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7916666667 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.04166666667 5.21951772744 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.293450419747 0.243740707755 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.085300109864 0.0831039109588 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0870253525779 0.0758088955206 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164919611901 0.150359130593 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0722536739074 0.0667264976115 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.06 12.1639044944 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 100.480337079 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => 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.