some countries there is is insufficient recycling of waste materials (eg paper, glass and cans). What are the reasons and solutions?
There has been much discussions associate with the problem about the ineffective waste recycling happening in some development countries. It can be explained by the inappropriate citizen behavior and the lack of government responsibility. In this regard, this essay will highlight academically these reason before coming to the plausible solutions with the use of frequently reuses items and the investment of government on its.
It is evidently reasonable for those to argue that the false perception of citizen and the lack of government concern are two main factors which lead to the inefficiencies. Firstly, most people suppose that the recycling old items cause waste of time on cleansing and inconvenience when taking away. For example, instead of recycling the water bottle and refilling it again, people can easily to buy a new one in convenient shops. Secondly, government currently do not have any notices about recycling or seldom pay attention to this. To illustrate, the ideas or organization related to reclaiming the waste materials rarely shared publicity through social media or national news. After that, the wrong behavior of citizen and irresponsible of government is the key factors of the disability waste recycling.
The plausible proposals to these principal issues facing the inefficiencies of waste recycling are supposed to be both individual behavior and the attention of government. On the one hand, reusable products play a crucial key in this era. If each people habitually reused old items , the congestion of garbage would be disappeared. According to a research of Skydoors magazine in Japan, about 3 years back, the amount of waste congestion witnessed a significant decline with five millions tons per year by encouraging citizen with the reuse of waste materials . On the other hand, the investment of government in organizing events or positive policies related to recycling used items is necessary. Given these point, both citizen and government play a role in waste recycling.
In conclusion, having cited both the reasons and solutions above, I suggest that both human and government should have proper awareness and pay attention in recycling waste, all of which play an essential role in protecting the earth.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 16, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
There has been much discussions associate with the problem ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 281, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
... each people habitually reused old items , the congestion of garbage would be disa...
^^
Line 3, column 345, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[1]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'research'.
Suggestion: research
...bage would be disappeared. According to a research of Skydoors magazine in Japan, about 3 ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 531, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ns per year by encouraging citizen with the reuse of waste materials . On the other hand,...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 559, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...itizen with the reuse of waste materials . On the other hand, the investment of go...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, for example, in conclusion, in fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 10.4138276553 144% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 41.998997996 133% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 8.3376753507 240% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1902.0 1615.20841683 118% => OK
No of words: 354.0 315.596192385 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.37288135593 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33761313653 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02679716418 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.556497175141 0.561755894193 99% => OK
syllable_count: 604.8 506.74238477 119% => 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: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.603669764 49.4020404114 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.875 106.682146367 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.125 20.7667163134 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.06120827912 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.01903807615 100% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 3.9879759519 276% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.182603591951 0.244688304435 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.057032070256 0.084324248473 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0311541107482 0.0667982634062 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114613597144 0.151304729494 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0249019736073 0.056905535591 44% => 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: 14.9 13.0946893788 114% => 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: 9.05 8.58950901804 105% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 78.4519038076 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => 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.