Environmental or natural hazards are the results of physical processes that affect humans and environment every day and harmful for both in the short and long run. As the use of fuel increases to keep up with modern demands and increased population, the world is becoming more vulnerable to environmental hazards and disasters. Floods, earthquakes, severe thunderstorms, toxic or oil spills immediately come to mind when comprehending this issue, implying that all these things are inherently hazardous.
One of the most effective solutions to these environmental hazards is to raise the price of fuel. The use of petroleum and gasoline can release toxic chemicals into our atmosphere. These chemicals escape into the air during refilling, from the gasoline tank and carburettor during normal operation, and from engine exhaust. Transportation sources account for about 30-50% of all harmful emissions into the atmosphere. The industrialisation is another reason for the omission of harmful chemicals too.
“Smog” is another environmental hazard. It causes human respiratory stress, and damages many plants, significantly reducing farm crop yields and the “health” of trees and other vegetation. Burning gasoline emits significant quantities of a wide range of harmful gases into the atmosphere. For example, carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas produced by incomplete combustion. Carbon dioxide, a normal product of burning fuel, is non-toxic but contributes to the greenhouse effect, which is also known as global warming and it is probably the most dangerous threat to the human existence.
Raising the price of fuel would mean that people would use less petroleum and gasoline. They would find other alternative means of transport to save money, which would mean using less high-priced fuel for everyday purposes. For example, cycling is a healthy activity and it saves the earth too. Also, for a long journey, people could try to find friends together for car-pooling. Carpooling saves a lot of fuel and would save a lot of money too. But other things should be considered to reduce the use of these dangerous fuels. A government should implement strict rules of using cars, for instance no less than 4 persons should be allowed to drive a single car. The price should be increased in a thoughtful way because if the price is so high it will hamper the average people's life leading. There are so many people yet use public transportation for movement and the increased price will make their life miserable. The prices of many necessary daily ingredients also increase with the price of the fuel.
Many environmental hazards like “smog” and global warming are increasing around the world due to the excessive use of petroleum and gasoline in our daily lives. Raising the price of fuel could make all the difference to the environment. It would force people to use petrol in a more responsible way and use it less, and therefore be the most effective solution to the problem of ever-increasing environmental hazards though it might have some side effects but those can be controlled by the proper initiatives by the Government.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 694, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a thoughtful way" with adverb for "thoughtful"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...ngle car. The price should be increased in a thoughtful way because if the price is so high it will...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 773, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...e is so high it will hamper the average peoples life leading. There are so many people ...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...o increase with the price of the fuel. Many environmental hazards like 'sm...
^^^
Line 9, column 471, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this can' or 'those cans'?
Suggestion: this can; those cans
...ugh it might have some side effects but those can be controlled by the proper initiatives...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, so, therefore, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 7.85571142285 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 26.0 10.4138276553 250% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 41.998997996 140% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 8.3376753507 204% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2667.0 1615.20841683 165% => OK
No of words: 504.0 315.596192385 160% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.29166666667 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.20363070211 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08572956978 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 176.041082164 144% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503968253968 0.561755894193 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 837.9 506.74238477 165% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 7.0 2.52805611222 277% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 0.809619238477 618% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 16.0721442886 162% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.897536883 49.4020404114 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.576923077 106.682146367 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3846153846 20.7667163134 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.11538461538 7.06120827912 30% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.01903807615 80% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 3.9879759519 226% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.212551348415 0.244688304435 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0636171740968 0.084324248473 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0773266025764 0.0667982634062 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126395712606 0.151304729494 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0715034449064 0.056905535591 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.0946893788 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.4159519038 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.58950901804 100% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 78.4519038076 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.