Do you agree or disagree that the most important thing that the government can do in improving health care is to clean the environment?
In this day and age, there is a sustained shift in human concerns towards their health rather than finance due to the direct threat of distinct blights whose origins are unable to be traced. I, as one of the soaring number of skeptics, ascribe this phenomenon to environmental issues, so it is rational to improve public health care by cleaning the environment.
First of all, virus infections in the environment harm people’s health in many attributes. 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 systems. 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 soi. Additionally, global warming sparks polar ice melting, which leaps the risk of being fiercely infected by liberalized toxic viruses. Therefore, the government should focus on cleaning the environment to prevent the exponential generation of infections from aggravating people’s health.
Secondly, 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 of 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 mercury particles into the air, it afterward is converted into methylmercury in water which is absorbed 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. Thereby, a fresh environment will retrieve propel food supplies.
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 278, Rule ID: IN_WHO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'whom'?
Suggestion: Whom
...ans’ respiratory systems. Scientists of WHO have suggested sterilizing the atmosphe...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, in conclusion, such as, as a result, first of all, 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: 5.0 9.8082437276 51% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 13.8261648746 51% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 43.0788530466 46% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 52.1666666667 88% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.0752688172 149% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1951.0 1977.66487455 99% => OK
No of words: 351.0 407.700716846 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.5584045584 4.8611393121 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32839392791 4.48103885553 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01428271348 2.67179642975 113% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 212.727598566 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.638176638177 0.524837075471 122% => OK
syllable_count: 611.1 618.680645161 99% => 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: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.6003584229 83% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.9280844203 48.9658058833 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.764705882 100.406767564 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6470588235 20.6045352989 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.94117647059 5.45110844103 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 11.8709677419 34% => 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: 0.117719953431 0.236089414692 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0384677430112 0.076458572812 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0521276441628 0.0737576698707 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0867450680577 0.150856017488 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0432025212002 0.0645574589148 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 11.7677419355 128% => 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: 14.97 10.9000537634 137% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.12 8.01818996416 126% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 86.8835125448 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.002688172 140% => 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.