By and large, it is established beyond doubt that in modern cities, people are facing a myriad of
By and large, it is established beyond doubt that in modern cities, people are facing a myriad of environmental issues. In this regard, individuals should make efforts in order to alleviate the situation. There has been no shortage of debates among scholars on whether it is more beneficial to plant trees and create parks or persuade shop owners to stop providing plastic bags. Meanwhile, there is a tendency toward the notion that increasing access to the public transportation will yield much more essential outcomes. As for this writer's opinion, I subscribe to the latter idea. In what follows, I will delve into the most crucial reasons to substantiate my viewpoint.
The first compelling reason corroborating my idea is that augmenting access to public transportation will contribute to mitigating air pollution. It is crystal clear that one of the prominent environmental problems is air pollution. It is axiomatic that the air humans breath makes their body and mind. Thus, it is vital to improve the quality of the air which could be done by reducing the amount of toxic gases in the atmosphere. The more access to public transportation, the fewer cars on the street. As a result, the usage of fossil fuels which are the primary source of spreading toxic materials will decrease significantly. By way of illustration, my friend Jackie lives in Budapest; his hometown has a massive public transportation system, and everybody uses it to reach their destination. It is worth mentioning that his city has much more fresh air compared with Paris which is my hometown. Thus, their people do not suffer from respiratory diseases or any other problems caused by air pollution. Had I lived in Budapest, I would have been able to benefit from pure and fresh air. This example clearly illustrates the role of public transportation in mitigating air pollution.
Furthermore, the other mentioned avenues are not practical. It is worth mentioning that plastic bags are cheaper than other paper bags, and also there are lots of companies that produce them. Even if people or governments manage to persuade local shops to stop using those bags, producers will rebel against such activity. Those companies that produce this product have lots of workers, and preventing usage of plastic bags means unemployment for lots of people. Hence, this idea is not plausible. In addition, planting trees and creating parks will take lots of time to be completed. It is noteworthy that creating parks not only are expensive but they also take lots of space. However, governments do not have enough resources to do these activities, and there is not enough space in most of the metropolitan areas. Hence, opting for these methods have lots of demerits and are not favorable to communities.
By perusing the above paragraphs, one can infer that the best solution for enhancing the natural environment is to make public transportation more accessible. For the sake of brevity, a couple of points are worth reiterating: firstly, it contributes to reducing the air pollution; secondly, Other methods are at lower levels of importance and also are impractical. As for this writer's advice, I vehemently urge individuals to pay heed to avenues in order to solve environmental problems so as to help people be healthy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 534, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ch more essential outcomes. As for this writers opinion, I subscribe to the latter idea...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 263, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
...pollution. It is axiomatic that the air humans breath makes their body and mind. Thus,...
^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... and are not favorable to communities. By perusing the above paragraphs, one ca...
^^^
Line 7, column 378, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...e and also are impractical. As for this writers advice, I vehemently urge individuals t...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 488, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...n order to solve environmental problems so as to help people be healthy.
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, thus, while, as for, as to, in addition, as a result, by and large
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 15.1003584229 199% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 9.8082437276 102% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 13.8261648746 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.0286738351 127% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 43.0788530466 109% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 52.1666666667 136% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 8.0752688172 235% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2762.0 1977.66487455 140% => OK
No of words: 540.0 407.700716846 132% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11481481481 4.8611393121 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82057051367 4.48103885553 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95137549017 2.67179642975 110% => OK
Unique words: 273.0 212.727598566 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.505555555556 0.524837075471 96% => OK
syllable_count: 870.3 618.680645161 141% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 18.0 9.59856630824 188% => OK
Article: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.6003584229 141% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.1344086022 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.7426645276 48.9658058833 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.2413793103 100.406767564 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6206896552 20.6045352989 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.10344827586 5.45110844103 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.5376344086 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 11.8709677419 118% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.88709677419 205% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0970404636063 0.236089414692 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0332391954624 0.076458572812 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.151838006702 0.0737576698707 206% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0735804455164 0.150856017488 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.101298412754 0.0645574589148 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 11.7677419355 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 58.1214874552 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.1575268817 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 10.9000537634 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.01818996416 110% => OK
difficult_words: 147.0 86.8835125448 169% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.002688172 80% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.0537634409 92% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => 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: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.