It is argued that we are living in a throw-way society: people throw away what they use in daily life, instead of recycling or reusing them. Why has this happened and how to address this issue?
Cheap disposable commodities helped people live in a convenient and low-cost way, but the environmental price is significant. Several factors contribute to the throw-away culture. Both short-term and long-term approaches should be adopted to address the problem.
Modern life is featured by long office time and high cost of living. People need the throw-away lifestyle to catch up with the pace of the world. To save time, people eat take away food packaged by disposable materials. To dress as beautiful as possible at the least cost, they swarm into H&M and Zara for fast fashion clothing, which is characterized by mediocre quality and is supposed to be worn only for one season. Mass production and advances in the chemical industry have enabled the throw-away culture by providing low cost but usable products.
The ever-changing electronic equipment further deteriorated the problem. Unlike traditional household appliances, phones and computers update every year. Because they are too complicated for people to upgrade by themselves, people have to ditch the old one for a new one. Every year more than 100 million phones are replaced. The electronic waste can be harmful to the environment.
To deal with the problem, we should launch initiatives to reduce the use of disposable materials and increase the recycling of useful things. Encouraging people to donate out-of-season clothes to impoverished people is the first step. Forbidden the use of disposable crockery in restaurants could be helpful, too. From the long-term perspective, governments should subsidize research on recyclable materials, help them to replace harmful substances in the manufacture of electronic equipment.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 7.30460921844 14% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 5.0 24.0651302605 21% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 41.998997996 90% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 8.3376753507 48% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1448.0 1615.20841683 90% => OK
No of words: 261.0 315.596192385 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.54789272031 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0193898071 4.20363070211 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0657757949 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 176.041082164 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.647509578544 0.561755894193 115% => OK
syllable_count: 450.0 506.74238477 89% => 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: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 20.2975951904 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.2125122893 49.4020404114 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.1764705882 106.682146367 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.3529411765 20.7667163134 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.05882352941 7.06120827912 15% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 3.4128256513 205% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.180156656817 0.244688304435 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0517610329662 0.084324248473 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0430916137326 0.0667982634062 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103197119269 0.151304729494 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0381176274658 0.056905535591 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.0946893788 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 50.2224549098 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.32 12.4159519038 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.4 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 78.4519038076 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 9.78957915832 72% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.1190380762 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.