In contemporary society, where environmental pollution has emerged as one of the most urgent issue of the government to handle, it comes as no surprise that elevating the effectiveness of protection has always amongst the top priorities of the government. Some adhere to the belief that funding research related to environmentally friendly energy sources can contribute to the enviroment, whereas two alternative strategies are to w or enact anti-polution legislations. I am inclined to concur with the the first proposal and in the ensuing paragraphs the rationale behind the statement will be further elucidated.
The foremost factor tipping the advantage from the later two to the first is the economy. To invent new clean energy, substantial sophisticated specialists, researchers and assistants will be recruited. During the research, they will use up considerable experiment consumables which are conceivably produced by the uneducated workers. Furthermore, once the new energy are utilized widespreadly, it can give birth to a new industry which gets more citizens employed. Hence, the government can reduce the unemployment rate which undoubtedly conduces to the prosperity and development of nation economy. On the contrary, the other suggestions are more than likely to render the locals unemployed on account of the striking reason that some companies have no option but to move elsewhere for the construction of the natural protection area or the hefty fines for the contamination.
Another significant reason that warrants attentions is that the effectiveness. As is known to all, carbon dioxide, gas emitted when fossil fuels are burnt, is one of the primacy gas responsible for global warming. Drastically increasing temperature of earth has resulted in melting of polar ice caps, flooding of low lying areas and rise in sea levels. Additionally, burning coal releases sulfur oxides causing acid rain which damages plant life and food chains. Therefore, never can we safeguard the wildlife without eradicating the source of harm like the pollution of burning fossil fuels. The same goes for the law enforcement because the company can shun the punishment by relocation. Nevertheless, finding new source of energy can cut down the emission of greenhouse gas and the toxic pollutants. It is not far-fetched to presume that the financial support is a prerequisite to it.
With all the above factors taken into consideration, we can logically reach a conclusion that it is more advisable for the government to conserve the environment by funding research.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 501, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...islations. I am inclined to concur with the the first proposal and in the ensuing parag...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 501, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...islations. I am inclined to concur with the the first proposal and in the ensuing parag...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 348, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... by the uneducated workers. Furthermore, once the new energy are utilized widespr...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, hence, if, nevertheless, so, therefore, whereas, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 15.1003584229 93% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 9.8082437276 102% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 13.8261648746 65% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 43.0788530466 37% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 52.1666666667 96% => 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: 2179.0 1977.66487455 110% => OK
No of words: 399.0 407.700716846 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.46115288221 4.8611393121 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46933824581 4.48103885553 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21243235101 2.67179642975 120% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 212.727598566 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.616541353383 0.524837075471 117% => OK
syllable_count: 696.6 618.680645161 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.3622111397 48.9658058833 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.055555556 100.406767564 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1666666667 20.6045352989 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.94444444444 5.45110844103 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.204028432904 0.236089414692 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0490326043666 0.076458572812 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0524223563774 0.0737576698707 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118857605252 0.150856017488 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0366715342236 0.0645574589148 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 11.7677419355 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 58.1214874552 70% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.1575268817 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.39 10.9000537634 132% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.43 8.01818996416 130% => OK
difficult_words: 144.0 86.8835125448 166% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 10.002688172 155% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => 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: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.