The world is consuming natural resources faster than they can be renewed. Therefore, it is important that products are made to last. Governments should discourage people from constantly buying more up to date or fashionable products. To what extent do you agree with this statement?
Over the last 30 years the West has witnessed the East strive for a larger ‘piece of the economic pie’, aiming for similar living standards to the EU and US. This has increased pressure on natural resources and prompted suggestions for governments to limit consumption. This idea is severely flawed because it reduces product safety and ‘building products to last would harm the poor.
Firstly, the suggestion that governments should discourage consumers from purchasing ‘up to date products’ would eliminate the opportunity to improve their safety. This is because as technology improves, new discoveries can be used to increase their utility. Take for example the car industry, here technology such as ABS brakes, air-bags, seat belts have all been derived from a constant flow of improvements. Therefore if the authorities were permitted to limit purchases, car companies would be reluctant to invest in new features, and safety would never improve.
Secondly, it is true we are consuming more, through ever increasing populations, nevertheless, the argument that ‘products should be made to last’ is redundant. If products were built stronger they would be more expensive. This would harm the less wealthy consumer, furthermore with modern technology these products can often be recycled at a later date anyway. Glass, plastic, paper, batteries, and even mobile phones are now collected to be re-purposed, reused and recycled. Therefore durable products are unnecessary and would harm lower income demographics.
To conclude it is clear that if the public sector were allowed to discourage consumption it would harm product improvements and ultimately consumer safety. Meddling with product durability would most likely harm the poor. Therefore I am strongly opposed to both of these notions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 412, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...d from a constant flow of improvements. Therefore if the authorities were permitted to li...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 162, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...s should be made to last’ is redundant. If products were built stronger they would...
^^
Line 5, column 478, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...to be re-purposed, reused and recycled. Therefore durable products are unnecessary and wo...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 223, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...bility would most likely harm the poor. Therefore I am strongly opposed to both of these ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
anyway, first, firstly, furthermore, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, for example, such as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 41.998997996 62% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 8.3376753507 48% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1542.0 1615.20841683 95% => OK
No of words: 278.0 315.596192385 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.54676258993 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94401991294 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 176.041082164 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.63309352518 0.561755894193 113% => OK
syllable_count: 473.4 506.74238477 93% => 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: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.4167787417 49.4020404114 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.8 106.682146367 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5333333333 20.7667163134 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06120827912 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.01903807615 80% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => 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: 0.269284466471 0.244688304435 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0929533024253 0.084324248473 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0645017564321 0.0667982634062 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.157607497839 0.151304729494 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0509773205233 0.056905535591 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.0946893788 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 50.2224549098 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.91 12.4159519038 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.87 8.58950901804 115% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 78.4519038076 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.