Almost everyone agrees that we should be training children to recycle waste to save the Earth's natural resources. Some believe that it is parents who should teach their children to recycle waste. Others argue that school is the best place to teach do this. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Harmful chemical and greenhouse gases, which damage the environment severely, are released from rubbish in landfill sites. Recycling, therefore, is vital for the natural world, and most people approve that recycling education is necessary for children to save the Earth's natural resources and leave this planet for future generations.
An argument emerged that who is the best tutor for kids about recycling. Some consider that parents should take the responsibility of recycling education for their children. However, others debate that school play the best role for this. From my point of view, I believe that family and school are both the best place to execute recycling education for kids.
As the first educator, parents' behaviour influences their kids profoundly. Children will learn by observing and following their parents. When they see parents taking time to separate out garbage into recyclable and non-recyclable materials, kids will imitate the same behaviour and follow parents green footstep. Besides, educating children about the goodness of recycling as early as possible is beneficial for them to understand the urgency of helping the Earth to reduce waste and the essential of recycling since the family is the first living community before they get into society.
Schools are influential in the conveyance of social norms and beliefs. It is well demonstrated that permanent attitudes and principles can firmly establish in children as they entered teen. In a class, teachers can train students to identify what they should toss, where they should throw, and where certain items should be thrown, and guide them to make a recycling program. During this kind of classes, students can learn about the cause and effect of recycling theoretically, and try to design a visionary recycling plan.
In conclusion, educating children to recycle waste in both home and school is overall benefits for their better understand of recycling and cultivating their environmental friendly behaviour. As a result, the benefits of recycling education can be passed on from generation to generation.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, first, however, if, so, therefore, well, in conclusion, kind of, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1787.0 1615.20841683 111% => OK
No of words: 327.0 315.596192385 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.46483180428 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78982899579 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 176.041082164 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.562691131498 0.561755894193 100% => OK
syllable_count: 544.5 506.74238477 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.2629654099 49.4020404114 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.6875 106.682146367 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4375 20.7667163134 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.3125 7.06120827912 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.320710105703 0.244688304435 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104600165985 0.084324248473 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0655475343735 0.0667982634062 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.177253833937 0.151304729494 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0443334918662 0.056905535591 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.0946893788 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 50.2224549098 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.39 12.4159519038 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.58950901804 103% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 78.4519038076 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.