"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.
The speaker states that regulators and policymakers should respond to potential environmental threats even before the information is fully known or concrete. While it is important that environmental threats be nipped in the bud, but taking action without complete knowledge may do more harm than good.
Firstly, the right course of action to be taken can be determined only if full information is available in any case and environmental threats is no exception.For example, the government of Maharashtra decided to ban the use of inorganic pesticides when it was reported that use of these pesticides caused the soil to become infertile. However, when a scientific research was conducted, it was found that when inorganic pesticides were used in optimum, they did not affect the soil fertility.Banning the use of inorganic pesticides instead would affect the harvest and in turn will impact the economy. If the government had researched thoroughly prior to imposing the new policy, they could have avoided the loss by taking the right course of action.
Another reason why regulators should not respond to potential environmental threats without complete details is that the response to the same may prove to be detrimental. Instead of providing a solution to the issue at hand, it may complicate the problem. In 2006, the Mumbai municipality passed a law stating that all vehicles must use CNG as fuel in order to bring the water pollution in Mumbai down. However,six months after the law was passed, it was found that the air pollution had in fact risen in the city. The reason for this was that CNG, when used in vehicles that ran on unleaded petrol caused more smoke than the other vehicles.
Thus, regulators and policy makers should not respond to potential environmental threats even before the information is fully known or concrete as such responses may be ineffective or even worse may aggravate the problem at hand.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 159, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: For
...d environmental threats is no exception.For example, the government of Maharashtra ...
^^^
Line 3, column 492, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Banning
... they did not affect the soil fertility.Banning the use of inorganic pesticides instead...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 411, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , six
... water pollution in Mumbai down. However,six months after the law was passed, it was...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, may, so, thus, while, for example, in fact, in any case
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 33.0505617978 54% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 58.6224719101 65% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1620.0 2235.4752809 72% => OK
No of words: 316.0 442.535393258 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12658227848 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 4.55969084622 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91521488197 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 215.323595506 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.525316455696 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 508.5 704.065955056 72% => 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
Interrogative: 2.0 0.740449438202 270% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 20.2370786517 54% => Need more sentences, or put a space between two sentences.
Sentence length: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.0680896706 60.3974514979 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.272727273 118.986275619 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.7272727273 23.4991977007 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.09090909091 5.21951772744 155% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 10.2758426966 10% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => 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: 0.197957798644 0.243740707755 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0926496920809 0.0831039109588 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.141169154221 0.0758088955206 186% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164995473505 0.150359130593 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.111329354024 0.0667264976115 167% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 14.1392134831 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.8420337079 88% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.07 12.1639044944 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 100.480337079 69% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 22.0 11.8971910112 185% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.