5 Aug: Many companies provide important products or services, but also damage the environment. Some people believe that the best way to stop companies from harming the environment is to require them to pay a penalty such as higher tax or a large fine when

By and large, the direct effect of government's actions, on the society is undeniable. Though the growth of new companies, is tied directly to the economic development that can affect society in various ways. There are a plethora of people who are in the conviction that the government should do so through acts such as more penalty or higher tax and larger fines, in order to reduce their damaging behavior toward environment, while others take a radically different point of view. To the extent that my personal perspective is concerned I accord with first group. Among countless reasons which give adherence to my opinion I will delve into the most important ones in what follows.

Firstly, shutting down the companies which produce indispensable products, that can be beneficial for the society in a larger picture, is not an option often. In other hand their destructive effect on environment shall not be neglected. In a long run the environment pollution can endanger the human health and therefor is not to be negotiated. Fining these companies in a large scale, can provide enough funding for the government to minimize their adverse effect on the environment. Take Nishaz Company for example. The produced oil was of importance for the country and in some sense even vital. The government was unable to stop the factory from releasing dangerous waste into the wild, and the company owners weren't willing to change their production line since they considered it too much expensive. Finally through a substantial fine the government funded the money needed to build a waste managing factory and used it for more than what Nishaz was destroying.
Secondly, fining makes reluctance toward employing the same trend by other companies. The machine oil production factories for example renewed their production line in 1994, three month after the large fine was acquired from Nishaz by the government. The companies employed greener attitudes toward the environment and thereby reduced their adverse effect on it.

In short all the aforementioned reasons and explanations come to the conclusion that government must limit the adverse subsequences of factories by posing larger fines on them. The government must oversee the company's actions, in order to provide a suitable bed for their progress, while minimizing the adverse consequences of their actions.

Average: 8.8 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 715, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
...e into the wild, and the company owners werent willing to change their production line...
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
... they considered it too much expensive. Finally through a substantial fine the governme...
Line 4, column 180, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'month' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'months'.
Suggestion: months
...ed their production line in 1994, three month after the large fine was acquired from ...

Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, while, for example, in short, such as, by and large

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 15.1003584229 93% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 13.8261648746 65% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.0286738351 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 43.0788530466 53% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 52.1666666667 102% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 8.0752688172 260% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1989.0 1977.66487455 101% => OK
No of words: 379.0 407.700716846 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.24802110818 4.8611393121 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.48103885553 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80324848085 2.67179642975 105% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 212.727598566 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5672823219 0.524837075471 108% => OK
syllable_count: 621.0 618.680645161 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 9.59856630824 10% => OK
Article: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.94265232975 182% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.2196511809 48.9658058833 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.5 100.406767564 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0555555556 20.6045352989 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.66666666667 5.45110844103 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.191036235411 0.236089414692 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0555131848225 0.076458572812 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0441425595388 0.0737576698707 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109121318387 0.150856017488 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0319599377429 0.0645574589148 50% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 11.7677419355 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 58.1214874552 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.1575268817 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 10.9000537634 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.22 8.01818996416 115% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 86.8835125448 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.247311828 137% => OK
What are above readability scores?

Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:

para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.

So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:

reasons == advantages or

reasons == disadvantages

for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.

or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.

Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 Out of 30
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.