80. Reducing global environmental damage should be handled by governments rather than individuals. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and provide relevant examples from your own experience.
Global environment damage is one of the seventeen goal of sustainable development goals. It is included because, this issue is risking our generation and limiting their life in healthy and safe environment. Even individuals are suffering from hazardous environment for the damage. The government giving attention this issue since it was relatively minor. However, even they tried to handle the issue, individuals care is more important that government. Therefore, whenever I got asked by such question, I would definitely agree that reducing global environment damage should be handled by individuals not only government. I hundreds of reason why I disagree with question, but I would like to mention three important reason.
First of all, government may manage messy recycling trashes by putting trash can for each item or they might build a technique that can eliminate trashes. Even thought, higher the population is more trashes will be recycled and this issue will stay headache for hundreds of centuries. Comparatively, If individuals manage to recycle their trash smartly like arranging or re-using, recycling process would be easier to handle. For example, personally, I arrange my trashes into five section. It includes PPT bottle, cans, glasses, battery and re-usable stuff. This is my contribution reducing global environment damage.
Secondly, we all know that cannot live without water, but we mostly do not travel responsibility; we dump trashes into rivers and lakes and those trashes uneven the ecosystem of rivers and lead to decrease of water. This issue almost impossible to handle by government. For this reason, Individuals should become more responsible for saving rivers and lakes. For instance, in my home country, when people travel to the biggest lake in Mongolia, they always carry big plastic bag to collect their own trash not to damage the lake.
Last but not least, everyone should choose eco-life to improve their living condition. It starts from little thing like, choosing eco-product and re-usable product. Nowadays, it looks cooler if you use cotton bag rather that plastic one and having coffee in own cup not from plastic or paper cup.
In conclusion, this life threating issue is depending from individuals; how they choose, how they manage ad how they manage. Henceforth, I am fully agreeing that environment damage should by handled by us.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 483, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'section' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'sections'.
Suggestion: sections
...sonally, I arrange my trashes into five section. It includes PPT bottle, cans, glasses,...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 42, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...n conclusion, this life threating issue is depending from individuals; how they choose, how ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 140, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...anage ad how they manage. Henceforth, I am fully agreeing that environment damage should by handl...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, for example, for instance, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 15.1003584229 79% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 9.8082437276 143% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 13.8261648746 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.0286738351 63% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 45.0 43.0788530466 104% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 52.1666666667 77% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 8.0752688172 272% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2015.0 1977.66487455 102% => OK
No of words: 377.0 407.700716846 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34482758621 4.8611393121 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4064143971 4.48103885553 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80011387813 2.67179642975 105% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 212.727598566 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575596816976 0.524837075471 110% => OK
syllable_count: 623.7 618.680645161 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 9.59856630824 156% => OK
Article: 1.0 3.08781362007 32% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.94265232975 40% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.6003584229 107% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.1344086022 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.5598990207 48.9658058833 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.5909090909 100.406767564 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1363636364 20.6045352989 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.90909090909 5.45110844103 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.202813260304 0.236089414692 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.058029329503 0.076458572812 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0418717136209 0.0737576698707 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10543307919 0.150856017488 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.042161960986 0.0645574589148 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 11.7677419355 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 58.1214874552 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 10.9000537634 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.01818996416 104% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 86.8835125448 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.002688172 80% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.0537634409 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.