Governments and big companies should work together to reverse environmental damage, rather than making individuals responsible for that. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Give your opinion and relevant examples.
It has argued by a significant number of individuals that state and bigger organizations must plan collectively for improvement in the environmental conditions instead of pushing these problems on people. In my opinion, I completely agree because such projects required a large amount of money and higher authorities are more responsible for those conditions of the ecosystem.
Firstly, repair of the environment on a broader scale requires a huge amount of money and manpower, thus the involvement of higher authorities is essential to provide funds and labour for those big tasks. For instance, the Ganga River cleaning project in India is the plan of 4 years with total costing of 200 billion dollars, in which 100 teams of 4 organizations are involved to make the river water potable.
Secondly, modernization by the government and the private sectors has made various changes in the society and it has reflected adversely on the atmosphere, therefore governments or companies should solve these hurdles for the betterment of future generations. For instance, the globalization and industrialization have destroyed many forests lands to build constructions like industries and modern cities to provide the upgraded facility to the people. However, these destructions of forests have made the greener world into a warmer world which can be seen as global warming.
In conclusion, reversing environmental changes required a lot of money, thus wealthy organizations and governments can afford such projects. Hence, I believe wealthy authorities should take such a burden on their shoulders instead of making people responsible. Else it will be difficult to survive in the coming decades.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 412, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...volved to make the river water potable. Secondly, modernization by the governmen...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, for instance, in conclusion, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 24.0651302605 54% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 41.998997996 86% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1438.0 1615.20841683 89% => OK
No of words: 262.0 315.596192385 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.48854961832 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02323427807 4.20363070211 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21042965577 2.80592935109 114% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 176.041082164 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.603053435115 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 448.2 506.74238477 88% => 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: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 16.0721442886 62% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 20.2975951904 128% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 54.6958864998 49.4020404114 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.8 106.682146367 135% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.2 20.7667163134 126% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.7 7.06120827912 166% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
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: 0.144614890369 0.244688304435 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0512144301932 0.084324248473 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0341987320326 0.0667982634062 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0813124581252 0.151304729494 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0178578209272 0.056905535591 31% => 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: 17.5 13.0946893788 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 50.2224549098 73% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.86 12.4159519038 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.11 8.58950901804 118% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 78.4519038076 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 9.78957915832 163% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.1190380762 123% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.