In many countries, plastic shopping bags are the main type of rubbish. They cause water pollution and land pollution, so they should be banned. To what extent do you agree?
Plastic, in the forms of shopping bags, in general caused a worldwide concern as the major source of polluter that contaminates land and water; therefore, some suggest to prohibit the usages of plastic bags. I somewhat disagree with this idea because a complete prohibition is rather a draconian solution whereas alternative solutions are readily available.
Undoubtedly, plastic shopping bags being the product of plastic which is non-biodegradable, are one of the primary source of land and water pollutions. Firstly, disposal of it into landfills leads to land pollutions because they might spread out from those to nearby human habitats due to natural phenomenon like strong winds, cyclones and floods. Secondly, disposing them into water sources such as Sewages and Canals also causes disruptions of water’s natural flows by stagnating waste into the flows which ultimately leads to water pollutions. Finally, burning them, which releases toxic substances, for instance, CFCs, carbon-di-oxide and carbon-mono-oxide into the atmosphere, also stimulates air pollutions. Therefore, banning the production and usages of it is the only way left to tackle land and water contaminations.
Despite this, there are still alternatives which might be even more effective and efficient in tackling the issue. Recycling of it rather than disposing to landfills combined with introduction of eco-friendly products such as jutes bags into the markets would be ideal solution to the problems. Besides this, enlightening the masses by raising awareness among them about the usages and importance of environmentally friendly products with regards to protecting environment, would be another quantum leap towards resolution of the same. Furthermore, when it comes to combating land and water pollutions, banning and reducing of it alone could not resolve the problems at all because there are other equally important sources of pollutants. For examples, construction, domestic waste, industrial waste and agriculture all contributes to degrade land, while waste from factories, sewage, power plants, underground coal mines and oil refineries contributes to contaminate water. If government fails to undertake pragmatic step to regulate pollution from those sources, it would be foolish to expect something positive and dramatic change to happen about the situation by prohibiting plastic bags alone.
In conclusion, although plastic shopping bags admittedly one of the major polluter of land and water worldwide, prohibiting usages and production is rather hard and fast approach to the problem; however, controlling usage and recycling of it combined with promotion of better alternatives would be best solution to the problems.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 161, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'suggest prohibiting'.
Suggestion: suggest prohibiting
...minates land and water; therefore, some suggest to prohibit the usages of plastic bags. I somewhat ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 296, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[4]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'be the best'.
Suggestion: be the best
... promotion of better alternatives would be best solution to the problems.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, whereas, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in general, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 10.4138276553 173% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 41.998997996 152% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2325.0 1615.20841683 144% => OK
No of words: 405.0 315.596192385 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.74074074074 5.12529762239 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.20363070211 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11713702135 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 176.041082164 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.572839506173 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 721.8 506.74238477 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 20.2975951904 138% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 54.0540168229 49.4020404114 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 166.071428571 106.682146367 156% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.9285714286 20.7667163134 139% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.4285714286 7.06120827912 190% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => 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: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.192871879288 0.244688304435 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0700028000519 0.084324248473 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0575684950046 0.0667982634062 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125688816288 0.151304729494 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0214455282933 0.056905535591 38% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.1 13.0946893788 153% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 26.14 50.2224549098 52% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.6 11.3001002004 147% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.6 12.4159519038 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.13 8.58950901804 118% => OK
difficult_words: 131.0 78.4519038076 167% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.1190380762 130% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.7795591182 158% => 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.