Do you agree or disagree that the most important thing that the government can do in improving health care is to clean the environment?
The awareness of health care has a close parallel to the development of society. In other words, people in this day and age are meticulously taking care of their health since they are mindful that they should be canny about their longevity other than chasing for finance. However, scientists find out more blights occured at bourgeois, namely cough, flu, and illness bereft figuring out the origins. I ascribe this phenomenon to environmental issues, so it is rational to state that the most crucial thing to improve health care is to clean the environment.
First of all, infections and viruses in the environment harm people’s health in many attributes. When people release gases and pollutants into the environment, a myriad of tiny organisms will be created and enter people’s bodies, which leads to several adverse diseases. Currently, the whole world is facing a deadly disease created by a virus called Corona; this virus is transmitted through the air and destroys humans’ respiratory system. Scientists of WHO have suggested sterilizing the atmosphere to abate the number of viruses, and this solution has been proved to validate. Unfortunately, viruses appear in every environment such as air, water, and soil. Therefore, the government should focus on cleaning the environment to prevent the exponential generation of infections from aggravating people’s health.
Secondly, a potential jeopardy in health damage occurs when humans eat poisoned animals. These days, activists are alarming that thousands of animals, regardless of arboreal or aquatic ones, are harshly poisoned by the waste which originates from humans’ activities, and people might be fatal if they take these species in. There is an epitome for this chain process. Methylmercury is regarded as a hazardous substance for people; however, it is reported that humans nowadays are absorbing a large amount of methylmercury through water and captivated aquatic animals. Specifically, factories release methylmercury into water, and this gas is inhaled by fishes. As a result, humans accidentally nibble this dreadful contaminant when they feed on those fishes, which gradually leads to undetected fatality. To sum up, the larger fish people eat, the more threatened their lives get.
In conclusion, the government should investigate cleaning the environment if they are aware of how the risks of environmental problems can degrade its citizens.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 457, Rule ID: IN_WHO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'whom'?
Suggestion: Whom
...mans’ respiratory system. Scientists of WHO have suggested sterilizing the atmosphe...
^^^
Line 4, column 161, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ntal problems can degrade its citizens.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, in conclusion, such as, as a result, first of all, in other words, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 15.1003584229 119% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 9.8082437276 61% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 13.8261648746 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.0286738351 100% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 43.0788530466 60% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 52.1666666667 94% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.0752688172 161% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2060.0 1977.66487455 104% => OK
No of words: 375.0 407.700716846 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.49333333333 4.8611393121 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40055868397 4.48103885553 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96887558214 2.67179642975 111% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 212.727598566 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.6 0.524837075471 114% => OK
syllable_count: 644.4 618.680645161 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 8.0 3.08781362007 259% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.86738351254 268% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.2270462285 48.9658058833 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.444444444 100.406767564 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8333333333 20.6045352989 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.44444444444 5.45110844103 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 11.8709677419 42% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 3.85842293907 285% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88709677419 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.136334939692 0.236089414692 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0451824209988 0.076458572812 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0633488759026 0.0737576698707 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0962681780555 0.150856017488 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0560122007812 0.0645574589148 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 11.7677419355 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 58.1214874552 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.1575268817 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.56 10.9000537634 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.81 8.01818996416 122% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 86.8835125448 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.002688172 115% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.247311828 146% => 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: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.