In the present, people often choose to throw away things that are broken and buy new ones, but in the past people usually repaired them. What do you think about this case? What solutions? (20/8)
In this day and age, along with consumerism, things that are unfashionable or obsolete, are chosen to throw away and people are inclined to purchase new ones. However, compared to the past these owners commonly fixed and reused these items. From my perspective, I believe that this ideology brings numerous disadvantages not only for consumers but also for the environment and there will be some ways to deal with this problem.
To begin with, this tendency is believed to harm the economy of consumers. Along with the throw-away society, mass production leads to overproduction, and manufacturers frequently encourage consumers to purchase new items that can make people fashionable. Nonetheless, these items are manufactured with the purpose of use in the short term, and when new items release, users will throw the oldies away and buy new ones. For example, Apple company has continually produced new technology devices such as iPhone X although this item has similarities with the old version. Through advertisements, it can attract customers to purchase at exorbitant prices. Hence, customers’ budgets will be sooner broken if they over-purchase goods. Furthermore, with the continuality of buying new items and discarding them into the environment, it can have an adverse effect on the Earth. To more elaborate, goods that are disposable and not biodegradable, once they are released into the environment continuously, could cause environmental pollution and affect human living conditions. Take India as an example, there are some so-called trash mountains such as Ghazipur occurring in India that lead to environmental contamination due to excessive production.
There are some solutions to overcome this difficulty. The government should be harsh about the mass production of companies by limiting the number of products manufactured and released into the environment. For instance, with old clothes, they can establish some groups that need old clothes, and by doing that, people can donate old items to poor people or individuals who need these things.
In conclusion, along with the trend of altering obsolete items to new ones, it causes numerous environmental contaminants and people also encounter many difficulties with solving these issues. From my view, people should invest money wisely in purchasing products that are necessary.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, hence, however, if, nonetheless, so, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 24.0651302605 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1994.0 1615.20841683 123% => OK
No of words: 363.0 315.596192385 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.49311294766 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3649236973 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09288986487 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 176.041082164 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.570247933884 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 630.9 506.74238477 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 12.0 4.76152304609 252% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.7582580406 49.4020404114 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.294117647 106.682146367 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3529411765 20.7667163134 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.35294117647 7.06120827912 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.67935871743 35% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 3.9879759519 226% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.167804209758 0.244688304435 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0569050051106 0.084324248473 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0474206400166 0.0667982634062 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108920115324 0.151304729494 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0199599410639 0.056905535591 35% => 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: 15.1 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.56 12.4159519038 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.46 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 78.4519038076 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.