Some people think that international car-free days are effective way of reducing air pollution. Others think there are some other ways.
In recent years global warming has reached unprecedented level due to pollution and one of the prime reason for so is proliferation in number of cars. People have opposing views on having international car-free days and that it would help in reducing the release of hazardous gases in atmosphere. In this essay, we will look into both sides of the view and I will express why I believe that having car-free day is not a viable solution for reduction of atmospheric pollution.
To begin with, today all household have at least one car. To illustrate, the number of cars in past decade has quadruple in comparison to past decade and as a result of which there have been surge in the carbon-dioxide emission levels. So, having a global day where individuals are not using car for will curb the pollution level. For example, Delhi the national capital of India as rule in form of "odd-even" number system where on specific day of week only car with odd numbers are allowed on road and rest of the days even as an alternate rotation pattern. Such initiatives are welcomed as they put check on people to use less private vehicles and more public transport.
On the other hand, focusing on one part of the problem will not have lasting impact for fight against the pollution. For instance, chemical manufacturers, coal and steel industries, bio-hazard companies release more harmful and dangerous gases into environment. The wastage released by organizations is much more lethal and damaging to earth's climate. I believe tackling this issue is of paramount importance cause many time these industries are very nearer to mega cities and cause destruction of life's. Instead, more concentrated effort should be made to use renewable resources instead of old fossil fuels which are already available in limited quantity.
In conclusion, controlling atmospheric pollution by global car-free days is good initiative but it does not have much impact. Instead, I opine keeping huge industries in check by proper wastage management is the way forward.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 337, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'earth'.
Suggestion: earth
...ons is much more lethal and damaging to earths climate. I believe tackling this issue ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, look, so, at least, for example, for instance, in conclusion, as a result, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 24.0651302605 54% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 41.998997996 124% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1723.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 338.0 315.596192385 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09763313609 5.12529762239 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28774723029 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92324610822 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.603550295858 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 552.6 506.74238477 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => 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: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.739833099 49.4020404114 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.866666667 106.682146367 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5333333333 20.7667163134 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.73333333333 7.06120827912 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => 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: 0.139701350444 0.244688304435 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0457197958973 0.084324248473 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0483827796317 0.0667982634062 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0868007517619 0.151304729494 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0376135243292 0.056905535591 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.0946893788 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 50.2224549098 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.4159519038 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 78.4519038076 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.