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 a global awareness campaign would be a more practical 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, ultimately leading to commuters choosing to more environmentally-friendly modes of transportation, such as public transport or electric bikes. According to the Land Transport Authority, after the Singaporean government implemented a 20% increase in fuel prices in 2018, there was a 2.2% increase in daily bus ridership in the first quarter compared to the same period in 2017.
However, this measure does not fully address the underlying causes of environmental problems. Moreover, these 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, contaminating both land and water. Therefore, the most effective approach would be running 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, including 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 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, first, however, moreover, second, so, therefore, while, 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: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 41.998997996 121% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2027.0 1615.20841683 125% => OK
No of words: 360.0 315.596192385 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.63055555556 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35587717469 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.26096322777 2.80592935109 116% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569444444444 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 639.0 506.74238477 126% => 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: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 20.2975951904 133% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 51.3027906781 49.4020404114 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 155.923076923 106.682146367 146% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6923076923 20.7667163134 133% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.84615384615 7.06120827912 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.132799403795 0.244688304435 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0508476248272 0.084324248473 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0487685565671 0.0667982634062 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0874507979048 0.151304729494 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0312951267347 0.056905535591 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.9 13.0946893788 144% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 27.15 50.2224549098 54% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 11.3001002004 143% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.67 12.4159519038 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.2 8.58950901804 119% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 78.4519038076 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.78957915832 138% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.1190380762 126% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.7795591182 148% => 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.