The best way to resolve the international environmental problems is to increase the cost of fuel. To what extend do you agree or disagree?
It is sometimes argued that raising the prices of fuel is the most efficient way to ease global environmental issues. I somewhat agree with this opinion, however, personally I believe that there are more better solutions to tackle it.
It is really true that charging more for the cost of petrol is an appreciate way to protect the available sources. Firstly, the most benefit shows a reduction in exhaust emission released into the atmosphere that causes the greenhouse effect and a threatened phenomenon – global warming. Secondly, in term of the industrialized age, burning materials are very essential. Nevertheless, a fact that many exporters suppose that the natural resources do not last forever, so increasing the cost of fossil fuel would limit the number of people using these materials that are very common now in the factories. Thus, I believe that the government should adopt the policy on charging more for higher cost of fuel.
On the other hand, there are more effective solutions to solve these problems. First of all, commuting by public transports should be stimulated to the population and the government need to introduce restrictions on the using of private vehicles. The less transportation on the road, the less carbon dioxide is released. Moreover, Using public transports also is the best ways to save the energy, contributing to prevent the natural resources from running out. Another the efficient solution is that replacing the unrenewable energy with the alternative energy sources or green energies, such as solar energy, wind power, hydroelectric power. Consequently, there are many methods that enable to help people deal with international environmental problems.
In conclusion, It is obvious that raising the cost of fuel is useful but just in the short-term while there are better ways to measure the global environmental issues.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-12-16 | bminhanh01 | 78 | view |
- Foreign visitors should pay more than local visitors for cultural and historical attraction. To what extend do you agree or disagree? 73
- Early technological developments helped ordinary people changed their lives more than recent developments. To what exent do you agree or disagree. 84
- The money spent by government on space programmes would be better spent on vital public services such as schools and hospitals.To what extend do you argee or disagree. 78
- Few languages are increasingly spoken in diffirent countries while the usage of others is rapidly declining. Is it a positive or negative development? 67
- In today’s world of science and technology, we still greatly value our artists suchas musician, writers, painters. What can arts tell us about that science and technology cannot? 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 200, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'better' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: better
...er, personally I believe that there are more better solutions to tackle it. It is really t...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 64, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...charging more for the cost of petrol is an appreciate way to protect the available sources. F...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 199, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ion and the government need to introduce restrictions on the using of private veh...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, firstly, however, moreover, nevertheless, really, second, secondly, so, thus, while, in conclusion, such as, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 41.998997996 83% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1576.0 1615.20841683 98% => OK
No of words: 298.0 315.596192385 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28859060403 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15483772266 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93073500906 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 176.041082164 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.570469798658 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 495.0 506.74238477 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.5911700786 49.4020404114 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.571428571 106.682146367 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2857142857 20.7667163134 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.2857142857 7.06120827912 174% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.178911216145 0.244688304435 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0531481352671 0.084324248473 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0524753596452 0.0667982634062 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111609106899 0.151304729494 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0341871638969 0.056905535591 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.0946893788 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.4159519038 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.34 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 78.4519038076 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => 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.