The impact that growing demand for more flights has had on the environment is
a major concern for many countries. Some people believe that one way to limit
the number of people traveling by air is to increase taxes on flights.
To what extent do you think this could solve the problem?
The rapid increase in air traffic has posed a strong threat to the ecosystem. Not only air travel users proliferation has exacerbated the problem of envronmental hazards, but sparked heated debates in past that hefty taxes on air flights would gradually bring down the unncessary air travelling. In my opinion, heavy taxes would barely reduce the frequency of air travellers due to no perfect substitute available for replacing the efficient air travelling in fast pace of life.
The most prominent reason in support of my view is that globalisation have turned the world into global village, which in turn, is highly interconnected for developments to take place in every sector. However, heavy taxes would deter the reliability of various sectors on each other with rise in costs of raw material due to taxes. Secondly, masses would have to shed more money for travelling by air in case of emergencies, consequently, demoralising the people united behind the real cause of environment conservation.
Apart from it, in developing countries majority of people travelling by air belong to high social status with massive disposable income. Hence such people would seldom show any reluctancy in paying taxes on flights. Furthermore, contrarily they tend to pay high cost to safeguard their business interest over long distance travels. Henceforth, idea of environment protection is defeated in this scenario.
On the other hand, low traffic in domestic or inland travels would ameliorate the situation by lesser land acquisation on large scale by government to meet the demands of air traffic by constructing domestic airports, thus people can be saved from being deprived of their fertile agriculture lands. Finally, tax collections can be parallelly used to boost the development of various public sectors with adequate fund allocation.
To sum up, I would strongly assert based on afforementioned facts that taxes impact would be minimal on limitising the air traffic, nevertheless, new challenges in return would bring negative repercussions to development of the country.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 63, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...air traffic has posed a strong threat to the ecosystem. Not only air travel users...
^^
Line 1, column 100, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'users'' or 'user's'?
Suggestion: users'; user's
... to the ecosystem. Not only air travel users proliferation has exacerbated the probl...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 118, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...elong to high social status with massive disposable income. Hence such people wou...
^^
Line 5, column 139, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...status with massive disposable income. Hence such people would seldom show any reluc...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 218, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...affic by constructing domestic airports, thus people can be saved from being depr...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, furthermore, hence, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, thus, apart from, in my opinion, to sum up, 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 : 2.0 10.4138276553 19% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 24.0651302605 46% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 41.998997996 150% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1762.0 1615.20841683 109% => OK
No of words: 325.0 315.596192385 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42153846154 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24591054749 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0331252069 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 176.041082164 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.64 0.561755894193 114% => OK
syllable_count: 547.2 506.74238477 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 5.43587174349 18% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => 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: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 66.0962181911 49.4020404114 134% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.538461538 106.682146367 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 20.7667163134 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.1538461538 7.06120827912 172% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.01903807615 100% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => 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: 0.197204032953 0.244688304435 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0697669606181 0.084324248473 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0485694131762 0.0667982634062 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102993039103 0.151304729494 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0408413058753 0.056905535591 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 13.0946893788 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 50.2224549098 75% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.4159519038 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.22 8.58950901804 119% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 78.4519038076 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.78957915832 148% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.