Some people say that economic growth is the only way to end hunger and poverty, while others say that economic growth is damaging the environment so it must be stopped. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
People have different views about the impacts of economic development. Although some people think that famine and destitution can be expunged with growth in the economy, I would argue that it has deleterious effects on the environment.
Those who support the idea of economic evolution as the sole factor to end hunger and poverty have their own justifications. The core of this argument is that more and more progressions in different sectors of the economy, taking agriculture as an example, will increase the productivity and yields from the farms. This would ultimately eliminate food scarcity. Furthermore, the expansion in the business and industrial sectors would not only create employment opportunities but also tax income for the government. In other words, People will start earnings from the jobs and the tax reserves of authorities can be reserved to serve starvation and chronic poverty.
However, I side with those who believe that economic growth plays a destructive role in nature. The most prominent reason is that rapid industrialization leads to pollution. This is because factories are emitting harmful fumes into the atmosphere and wastes are disposed of into water resources. To cite an example, China, being the world’s top industrial region, half of its population has no access to drinkable water due to water contaminations. Another point worth considering is that the exploitation of exhaustible natural resources caused by manufacturing or mining companies is a contributory factor of environmental destruction. This would result in the destruction of fertile land, water shortages, scarcity of coal and natural gases, and metals depletion.
Conclusively, while some people have reasons to believe in economic development as a means to end food shortages and deprivation, I tend to think that this must come to a stop to avoid environmental eradication.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-04-23 | BangarSonia | 73 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, so, while, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 41.998997996 93% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 8.3376753507 216% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1597.0 1615.20841683 99% => OK
No of words: 293.0 315.596192385 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.45051194539 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13729897018 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19850764279 2.80592935109 114% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 176.041082164 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60409556314 0.561755894193 108% => OK
syllable_count: 511.2 506.74238477 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.7740988853 49.4020404114 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.071428571 106.682146367 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9285714286 20.7667163134 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.42857142857 7.06120827912 63% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.67935871743 35% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 3.9879759519 226% => 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: 0.184204139938 0.244688304435 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.05613019979 0.084324248473 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0629746323741 0.0667982634062 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124602044748 0.151304729494 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0566990703454 0.056905535591 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.0946893788 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 50.2224549098 85% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.33 12.4159519038 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.48 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 78.4519038076 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.