Governments should make people responsible for looking after their own local environment. Do you agree or disagree?
The notion of whether governments should propose individuals to maintain their surrounding environment has become immensely controversial. In my viewpoint, this can be beneficial and unfavourable for the environment.
People are more concern about themselves and their surroundings than anything else. This is a great idea when it comes to this psychological facet. No one can sit still looking at garbage lying in front of their house, or trees cut down in the local park that their children usually play in. Consequently, they are obliged to be more responsible, thus propagating others to conserve a beautiful, vivid atmosphere. Luang Prabang in Laos decided to execute the same procedure and received wonderful results. The town is spotless as there was no trash or filtering in the local street and river. Needless to say, this major advantage helps the government to reduce expenditure on conserving and reconditioning the environment. Moreover, a more effective method could be penalizing individuals that damage or neglect their environment. This is significant since people need to take the obligation to preserve their own surroundings.
However, this action can be counter-productive with irresponsible and unconscious individuals. With people ignoring the environment, it will be heavily damaged and probably destroyed without the interference of the government. A recent survey announced that only 7% percent of people agreed to look after their environment unaccompanied by the government. Imposing a fine will not help in this circumstance because no one can make others suddenly acknowledge and worried about the environment’s state. Additionally, when the government decided to fine irresponsible local residences, the environment has already been critically harmed. The most dangerous part is this is the opportunity for unconscious individuals to freely do what they want without the interference of governments. Trees will be cut down, rivers will be polluted, and the air will be filled with hazardous gasses.
In conclusion, although this decision is a growing trend and has been executed effectively in many countries, it is significant to regard or propagate civilizations first before taking further actions.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, however, if, look, moreover, still, thus, in conclusion, in my view
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 13.1623246493 152% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1940.0 1615.20841683 120% => OK
No of words: 341.0 315.596192385 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.68914956012 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29722995808 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.40730158321 2.80592935109 121% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.598240469208 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 592.2 506.74238477 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.798621615 49.4020404114 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.777777778 106.682146367 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9444444444 20.7667163134 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.88888888889 7.06120827912 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.9879759519 201% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.21773601031 0.244688304435 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.06661810389 0.084324248473 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0555192348702 0.0667982634062 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117247535627 0.151304729494 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0683093420198 0.056905535591 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.0946893788 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 50.2224549098 89% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.72 12.4159519038 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.44 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 78.4519038076 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.