The best way to solve the world’s environmental problems to increase the costs of fuels. Do you agree or disagree?
Some people argue that the best approach to deal with such problems is to increase fuel prices, assuming that it will lead directly to the drop in car use. This approach is productive to some extent, but some other measures should be given equal consideration.
It should be first noted that car use alone does not take up the entire consumption of petrol, although people’s obsession with car use contributes greatly to greenhouse gas emission. Petrol is intended for other applications too, such as electricity generation, the daily running of equipment and machinery for industrial and agricultural purposes. People are not surprised to see that the appliances used by many families are powered by petrol as well. Therefore, when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, people should take different methods simultaneously, instead of relying on any single method only.
People should acknowledge the fact that the demand for petrol is generally inelastic, at least in the short run. The consumption of petrol would not vary significantly according to the fluctuation of petrol price. To such a high degree have people relied on petrol in their daily lives that they cannot cut petrol use immediately. Some people might argue that using public transport is an alternative, but notably, public transport itself is a large producer of carbon dioxide. Going on foot or by bike is clean, but not preferred by many people, who are extremely time-conscious.
Therefore, the effort to reduce greenhouse gases emission by curbing car use cannot achieve any immediate outcome unless sufficient time is given. Over a period of years, petrol consumption is very likely to drop, when households realise that fuels represent an increasing proportion of expenditure. People might turn to fuel-efficient cars or reduce non-essential trips, both resulting in the drop in petrol use. Car manufacturers are forced to enlarge research and development investment in producing hybrid cars or cars powered by renewable clean energy sources, a cure-all for car emission problems.
In conclusion, imposing petrol tax is neither the main nor the only solution to environmental problems that people are struggling to solve, although the utilisation of fossil fuels, particularly petrol, is the largest source of emissions. Some other methods should be taken into consideration as well.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, so, therefore, well, at least, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 41.998997996 112% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2012.0 1615.20841683 125% => OK
No of words: 373.0 315.596192385 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.39410187668 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39467950092 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00597530888 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 176.041082164 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.56836461126 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 629.1 506.74238477 124% => 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: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.5104939415 49.4020404114 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.352941176 106.682146367 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9411764706 20.7667163134 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.05882352941 7.06120827912 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0510416278009 0.244688304435 21% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0187063743949 0.084324248473 22% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0392529605794 0.0667982634062 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0382471232053 0.151304729494 25% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0368066824116 0.056905535591 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.0946893788 114% => 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: 13.98 12.4159519038 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.33 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 78.4519038076 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.78957915832 148% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => 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: 11.2359550562 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.