It is true to say that normal people do not recycle their waste as far as possible.
It is true to say that normal people do not recycle their waste as far as possible. Regarding this, it is claimed that the only method to increment recycling is through enacting strict rules. To some extent I acknowledge that imposing firm regulations could oblige modern people to recycle their waste; however, other tactics should be taken into account helping to increase recycling.
Incontrovertibly, if new laws enacted in order to penetrate the residents who do not deliver adequate recycle to the responsible sectors, the volume of reusable materials will climb up considerably. As a case in point, the local authorities could impose higher taxes on dwellings which are not delivering their reusable materials. This tax could be added on their monthly bills and they face the result of their irresponsibility regarding their recyclable materials.
On the other hand, the administrative system had better use other measures to enhance the knowledge of the general public in terms of the advantages and disadvantages of recycling both for the individuals and the environment. As an illustration, people could be informed via social media and a special campaign in terms of the benefits of recycling. In such a context, it is quite likely to increase recycling from homes. In addition to this, the school curriculum should be devised to teach pupils how to separate different reusable materials in various baskets. Consequently, they can outdo in their adulthood in separating their rubbish from their recycles.
To sum up, while enacting new rules could force people to recycle their materials, other measures such as enhancing their knowledge in terms of the merits of recycling should be implemented efficiently.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 108, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...easures to enhance the knowledge of the general public in terms of the advantages and disadvan...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, however, if, regarding, so, well, while, in addition, such as, it is true, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 24.0651302605 96% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 41.998997996 102% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1452.0 1615.20841683 90% => OK
No of words: 273.0 315.596192385 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31868131868 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01773706192 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 176.041082164 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.578754578755 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 453.6 506.74238477 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => 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: 48.8372438707 49.4020404114 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.0 106.682146367 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.75 20.7667163134 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.75 7.06120827912 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.36161808803 0.244688304435 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.157258453754 0.084324248473 186% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.259166746145 0.0667982634062 388% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.229819253864 0.151304729494 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.145745845036 0.056905535591 256% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.4159519038 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.47 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 78.4519038076 105% => 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: 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.