"Regulators and policymakers should respond to potential environmental threats even before the information is fully known or concrete."
How would you rate the accuracy of the above statement? Support your position with reasons and examples.
Environmental threats are part and parcel of human lives. Despite taking innumerable precautions to minimize the effects of the disaster, there will still be significant amount of loss of lives and property due to such catastrophes. Hence, it is the primary duty of the regulators and policy makers to anticipate the threats beforehand and prevent them by taking necessary measures.
To begin with, when meteorologists anticipate the occurrence of such natural disasters, the regulators and policymakers must take sufficient steps to curb the disastrous effects of such catastrophe. For instance, during the Tsunami in 2004, Chennai, although some slight omens were provided about the occurrence of a natural disaster, the indifference of the officials has lead to the loss of around 20.000 people due to the event. Had the officials taken sufficient measurement s to prevent such a loss, there would have been some minimal deaths. Hence, it is the duty of such officials to be vigilant about the consequences of any such disaster.
In addition, it is also the job of the policymakers to relocate the people to save their lives and property. Anticipating the sinister is only the first step in preventing the loss of the catastrophe. The officials must provide shelter and accommodation to the people who were brought to the safety houses. During the recent cyclone in Chennai, the government has taken sufficient measures to relocate the people from the places which are not immune to the disaster and hence saved the lives of hundreds of people. Proper food and basic amenities were provided to the people and hence even though the magnitude of the cyclone was humongous, there was a minimal loss to the life and property of the people. Hence, it is the duty of the officials to provide proper shelter to the people who were affected by the catastrophe.
In contrary, sometimes there might be some sudden environmental events which cannot be anticipated by the meteorological department beforehand. It is not all possible to predict the patterns of the weather all the time. During these cases, the officials usually respond after the occurrence of the disaster. Nonetheless, during these times, quick decisions must be taken by the officials to ebb the magnitude of the catastrophe. But, one must not condemn the officials for not anticipating the threat in the first place itself.
In conclusion, in most of the cases, it is the duty of the policymakers and regulations to the potential environmental threats beforehand and take necessary precautions to curb the magnitude of the disaster. Proper measures must be provided to the people who are relocated to safety houses. However, sometimes the occurrence of a disaster cannot be anticipated and one must not criticize the officials for not responding to the threats effectively, instead try to reduce the magnitude of damage.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, nonetheless, so, still, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, to begin with, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 33.0505617978 33% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 58.6224719101 131% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2426.0 2235.4752809 109% => OK
No of words: 468.0 442.535393258 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18376068376 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65116196802 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99698206981 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 215.323595506 87% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.399572649573 0.4932671777 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 784.8 704.065955056 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.740449438202 135% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.3173842173 60.3974514979 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.523809524 118.986275619 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2857142857 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.52380952381 5.21951772744 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 5.13820224719 292% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0696711960465 0.243740707755 29% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0253540773225 0.0831039109588 31% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0335224210453 0.0758088955206 44% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0485838914209 0.150359130593 32% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0280163604446 0.0667264976115 42% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.06 12.1639044944 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.03 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 100.480337079 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 11.8971910112 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.