Some people think that one of the best ways to solve environmental problems is to increase the cost of fuels for cars and other vehicles. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Severe environmental damage has generated arguable solutions, yet many believe raising the cost of fuels is the most effective method. While I conceive that this creates a favorable process to nature, I think it is narrow and will not work in the long-term.
It is clear that the increase the price of fossil fuels has many positive impacts on the environment. To begin with, many private transportations is the main source of air pollution. While travelling by cars, the toxic air injecting the environment is maximized, as it is multiplied by the number of individuals that should have used a public transportation. For instance, a bus comprises 30 people, and with those people using their own private vehicles, it will be 30 times more polluted. This is an alarming torture towards natural environment and humans’ health. Additionally, these vehicles are using fossil fuel, which is an irreversible fuel and this drains out the balance of natural environment. More transportations require more provision of energy, and natural resources will soon run out by this intensive rate of usage.
However, this is not merely efficient as fuel is not the only reason for environmental problem. Raising fuels cost can only degrade air pollution. Nevertheless, individuals may have forgotten about the transition between the pollution state. A soil pollutants will eventually migrate into water body, and with water evaporating, this will recreate air pollution. Therefore, this solution can only reduce an inconsiderable amount of pollution, that will soon be balanced through transition process. Moreover, there are more productive methods that the government can easily execute. It should be obligatory for factories and companies to take full responsibility of their waste, which they are not allowed to dispose toxic pollutants to the atmosphere and rivers. The authorities should prohibit and fine them heavily if they are not following the policy. Needless to say, this solution will help a nation raise awareness and propagate to conserve the environment.
Regarding the positive impact of raising fossil fuel price, the environment will not be conserved properly in the long-term. I strongly believe that this option is not favorable to solve the environmental problems.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, so, therefore, while, for instance, i think, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 7.85571142285 191% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 24.0651302605 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 41.998997996 81% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 8.3376753507 228% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1933.0 1615.20841683 120% => OK
No of words: 356.0 315.596192385 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.4297752809 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34372677135 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07341241016 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 176.041082164 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.542134831461 0.561755894193 97% => OK
syllable_count: 614.7 506.74238477 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 5.43587174349 221% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 16.0721442886 124% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.2423990756 49.4020404114 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.65 106.682146367 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8 20.7667163134 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.55 7.06120827912 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.9879759519 201% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.178709845055 0.244688304435 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0567533823813 0.084324248473 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0499169426174 0.0667982634062 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110880878322 0.151304729494 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0140215435849 0.056905535591 25% => 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: 13.0 13.0946893788 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 50.2224549098 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.4159519038 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.05 8.58950901804 105% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 78.4519038076 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.