The trend of increased consumer goods production is damaging the natural environment. Why is it still happening? What are the solutions for this situation?
The natural environment is increasingly destroying with production of consumer goods worldwide. The origins of this dangerous situation seem to stem from two primary factors and several remedies appear to exist to resolve this issue.
Firstly, perhaps the major factor is related to goods' manufacture process which is somewhat defective. This means that possibility of recycling all parts of goods after consuming are not considered by manufacturer in most cases. This step can be the most significant part of goods' production. For example, in factories producing type of chocolate. It is necessary to employ some experts in field of planning to recycle that they are able to plan type of paper wrapping for chocolate which could be capable of recycling. Furthermore, the second cause is the households' waste recycling, meaning that this step is done in fault way by families. This is because People usually do not have sufficient knowledge about separating garbage. Therefore whole garbage with various materials are thrown out. As a result the wast recycling would be defective as well as the natural environment will damage.
Turning to possible solution, an obvious step would be to employ the professional experts in factories to plan methods of production levels with material would be able to recycle. It would be possible, if manufacturer gain enough knowledge in this way. A second remedy might be a state education. Due to the fact that individuals could be known how their waste collect by education through media or encouraging programs. Governments could have the most important responsibility for this solution.
In summary, defective manufacture process and waste recycling appear be the main causes. Experienced experts in factories and appropriate education system to separate waste properly by households may well lessen the severity of the situation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 734, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...ent knowledge about separating garbage. Therefore whole garbage with various materials ar...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, furthermore, if, may, second, so, therefore, well, for example, in fact, in summary, as a result, as well as, in most cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 41.998997996 105% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1588.0 1615.20841683 98% => OK
No of words: 293.0 315.596192385 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.41979522184 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13729897018 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94572665085 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 176.041082164 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.580204778157 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 498.6 506.74238477 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.594480831 49.4020404114 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.2222222222 106.682146367 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2777777778 20.7667163134 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.72222222222 7.06120827912 109% => 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: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.155860990733 0.244688304435 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0541733062855 0.084324248473 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0633359066359 0.0667982634062 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105666513289 0.151304729494 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0890184444766 0.056905535591 156% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.0946893788 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 50.2224549098 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.3001002004 95% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.86 12.4159519038 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 78.4519038076 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 9.78957915832 72% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.