Many people argue that increasing the price of fuel is the most effective measure to address the problems of the environment. While this approach can potentially reduce harmful fume rates by limiting the number of vehicles on the roads, I maintain that running a global awareness campaign would be a more feasible way to address the root causes of this issue.
On the one hand, raising fuel costs might decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in cities at a certain level. In reality, vehicles release vast amounts of noxious fumes into the atmosphere every second, which makes the air more noxious and more polluted. Requiring individuals to pay more for their journeys can encourage them to rely less on their private vehicles. Singapore, for instance, successfully reduced the number of private car registrations by 15% when the government implemented a 20% increase in fuel prices in 2018. This may lead to commuters choosing to use alternative, more environmentally-friendly modes of transportation, such as public transport, bicycles or electric bikes, thereby reducing the amount of harmful emissions in the air.
However, this measure does not fully address the underlying causes of environmental problems. Moreover, environment-based issues can stem from various factors, including the use of plastic bags while shopping or the use of noxious chemicals in the agricultural and industrial sectors that contaminate both land and water. Therefore, the most effective approach would be launching a worldwide program to raise consumers' awareness of the importance of environmental costs. Additionally, the program promotes the use of eco-friendly practices in farming and manufacturing, such as reducing the consumption of harmful chemicals and adopting renewable energy sources. Sweden has been implementing sustainable farming practices, such as reduced pesticide usage and organic farming, to promote biodiversity and reduce the environmental impact of agriculture. In manufacturing, the country has been investing in renewable energy and promoting circular economy principles, such as designing products for reuse and recycling.
In conclusion, while increasing fuel prices can cut emissions to some extent by discouraging individuals from using private vehicles, a global awareness campaign will be a more effective measure to mitigate the underlying causes of this problem. I am also convinced that once this approach is implemented, there will be more people perceiving the importance of environmental protection, contributing to the reduction of environmental issues.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, may, moreover, second, so, therefore, while, for instance, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 41.998997996 121% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2197.0 1615.20841683 136% => OK
No of words: 386.0 315.596192385 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.69170984456 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43248042346 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.32723687892 2.80592935109 119% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 176.041082164 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.551813471503 0.561755894193 98% => OK
syllable_count: 694.8 506.74238477 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 47.3746298725 49.4020404114 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.466666667 106.682146367 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.7333333333 20.7667163134 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.73333333333 7.06120827912 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.115864806496 0.244688304435 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0431089806341 0.084324248473 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.047711951911 0.0667982634062 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0814681889041 0.151304729494 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0342512783638 0.056905535591 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.2 13.0946893788 139% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 50.2224549098 58% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.02 12.4159519038 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.11 8.58950901804 118% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 78.4519038076 163% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.78957915832 138% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.