The government should reduce the amount of money spent on local environmental problems and instead increase funding into urgent and more threatening issues such as global warming
It is argued that the governing bodies should invest more in the exceedingly harmful environmental issues globally by lowering expenditures on the regional level. This essay disagrees that local ecological affairs should suffer from the underinvestment. Firstly, small problems, when not addressed, can nullify the bigger effort; secondly, disbursing funds locally could raise population’s willingness to work on nature-related issues.
Every city, village, and even a household, if considered altogether, bring significant influence to the nature challenge pot. Although one harmful activity can pass unnoticed, constant repetitions will definitely leave a mark on our planet. Supported with money, municipal authorities can control the environmental concerns at source. France, for example, by banning the use of cars in the center of Paris, managed to reverse the rising trend of greenhouse gas emissions for the whole country.
Spending regionally is more visible to citizens and hence serves as a greater motivation to help with the implementation of conservation initiatives. By lobbying a territorial governor to campaign for the nature preservation activity, a higher engagement rate from residents can be achieved. Moreover, this can encourage volunteers and community leaders to support the case by spreading a call to action. For instance, when Mayor of New York announced public transport reform and encouraged metropolitan citizens to use tube instead of car for a daily work commute to fight a global warming, the response was overwhelming.
In conclusion, environment themes should not be depleted of financial resources if they are taking place provincially because of their scalability to the aggregate level along with more impactful effect on winning population’s support.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, hence, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, for example, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 8.0 24.0651302605 33% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 41.998997996 86% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1540.0 1615.20841683 95% => OK
No of words: 265.0 315.596192385 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.81132075472 5.12529762239 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03470204552 4.20363070211 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.2537318717 2.80592935109 116% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 176.041082164 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.701886792453 0.561755894193 125% => OK
syllable_count: 485.1 506.74238477 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => 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: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.3667637114 49.4020404114 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.333333333 106.682146367 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0833333333 20.7667163134 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.66666666667 7.06120827912 123% => 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 : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => 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: 0.132115389763 0.244688304435 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0447655163437 0.084324248473 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.057839027598 0.0667982634062 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0773612223408 0.151304729494 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0667651836683 0.056905535591 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 13.0946893788 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 50.2224549098 64% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.42 12.4159519038 132% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.46 8.58950901804 133% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 78.4519038076 144% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.