Some people think that the best way to resolve environmental problems is to increase fuel and vehicles’ prices.
Do you agree or disagree with the statement?
Environmental issues have always been a controversial topic nowadays. To solve environmental problems, some claim that the government should raise the cost of vehicles’ usage for people; however, others reject this idea. Although both groups present their reasons to support their sides, I completely agree with the latter party. I am going to express both sides’ idea and then I will present mine.
On the one side, some people believe by increasing fuel and cars’ price, we can handle environmental issues. They maintain, it forces people to use public transportation more than today. They mention historical data to prove their statement that before industrialization period, people used to travel by public transportation. In addition, they state, if the price of vehicles increases, cars would not be affordable any more. Thus, vehicles’ manufacturer would decrease their production rates. As a result, the total vehicles would be decrease in long term.
On the other hand, other party believes increasing the cost of vehicles’ usage would just enlarge the gap between poor and rich in the society, while the government has been trying to close this gap. To consider in economic issue, vehicles’ manufacturers provide wide range and huge number of jobs. Thus, reduction in manufacturing vehicles would lead to increase the unemployment rate, which cannot stand by the society.
From my point of view, the reasoning that provided by the former group is fallacious. Because they did not consider the consequences of their suggestion. Also, there are numerous ways that could enhance environmental problems without increasing fuel cost such as, usage of electric cars and improving efficiency of motor combustion of the common vehicles.
In conclusion, both parties provide their reasons. Although the reasons that are presented to support growing vehicles’ usage as a solution seems reliable, I believe the second group presents more supportive reasons. I think, experts could find other ways to lessen environmental issues like, research on electric cars.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 86, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ided by the former group is fallacious. Because they did not consider the consequences ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, second, so, then, thus, while, i think, in addition, in conclusion, such as, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 41.998997996 93% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1760.0 1615.20841683 109% => OK
No of words: 320.0 315.596192385 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.5 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22948505376 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94729086408 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.61875 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 531.0 506.74238477 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.10420841683 285% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.1903462716 49.4020404114 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.6315789474 106.682146367 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8421052632 20.7667163134 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.63157894737 7.06120827912 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 3.4128256513 264% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.226355077981 0.244688304435 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0599936496504 0.084324248473 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0559275194934 0.0667982634062 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110314860037 0.151304729494 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0373809949486 0.056905535591 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.0946893788 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 50.2224549098 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.3001002004 95% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.32 12.4159519038 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.58950901804 102% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 78.4519038076 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 9.78957915832 72% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.