Governments should focus its budgets more on environmental protection than on economic development.
As the technology and economy advanced, our mother nature has been damaged so severely that its consequences started to impact us. therefore, some began to call on governments that we should focus more on environmental protection than on economic development. However, I do not fully agree with such opinion for two reasons.
For one thing, even though we all know the importance of protecting the nature to create a sustainable living environment; yet, when facing the reality, it is in fact rather hard to require the governments to pour its effort more on environmental issues than on economic growth. Considering that the economic growth represents the prosperity of a country, the possible way for the government to apply may be lowering the damage and impact on the natural environment when developing the economy. Rather than transferring the focus from one to the other, striking a balance between these two issues may sound more possible and may meet the current needs.
For another, governments should take great consideration to the proper way of protecting environment. For instance, to decrease the amount of coal-burning, some encourage the public to use solar panels for substitution. The solar panel is seemingly an environmental-friendly energy source, though, what is neglected is that the solar panel itself is unrecyclable and is poisonous to the earth. Therefore, before sparing no effort in protecting our precious nature, the governments should first convene for better and proper methods, lest we are caught destroying the environment with our seemingly protective deeds.
To sum up, governments definitely ought to advocate and promote environmental protection. Nonetheless, governments should also consider the reality of the need to develop economic growth and the proper ways that really protect our nature. By striking a balance between these two issues, the governments can help create a sustainable living environment for future generations.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 61, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ckground-color: rgb255, 255, 255;'> As the technology and economy advanced, ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e with such opinion for two reasons. For one thing, even though we all know <...> ^^^^
Line 3, column 418, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Considering
...nmental issues than on economic growth. considering that the economic growth represents
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ible and may meet the current needs. For another, governments should take gre...
^^^^
Line 5, column 533, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Therefore
...;'> and is poisonous to the earth. therefore, before sparing no effort in protecting...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...os;> our seemingly protective deeds. To sum up, governments definitely ought ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, may, nonetheless, really, so, therefore, for instance, in fact, for one thing, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 15.1003584229 60% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 9.8082437276 102% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 13.8261648746 51% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.0286738351 63% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 43.0788530466 46% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 52.1666666667 69% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.0752688172 186% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2434.0 1977.66487455 123% => OK
No of words: 356.0 407.700716846 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.83707865169 4.8611393121 141% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34372677135 4.48103885553 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 5.41051779549 2.67179642975 203% => Word_Length_SD is high.
Unique words: 183.0 212.727598566 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.51404494382 0.524837075471 98% => OK
syllable_count: 643.5 618.680645161 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.51630824373 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 9.59856630824 31% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 20.6003584229 63% => 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: 27.0 20.1344086022 134% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 120.42862307 48.9658058833 246% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 187.230769231 100.406767564 186% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.3846153846 20.6045352989 133% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.46153846154 5.45110844103 155% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.5376344086 108% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
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: 0.152584747228 0.236089414692 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111867167685 0.076458572812 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.14863643871 0.0737576698707 202% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142506866721 0.150856017488 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0528178662229 0.0645574589148 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 24.5 11.7677419355 208% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: 27.15 58.1214874552 47% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.10430107527 213% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 10.1575268817 159% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 22.69 10.9000537634 208% => Coleman_liau_index is high.
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.01818996416 111% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 86.8835125448 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.5 10.002688172 165% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.0537634409 127% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.247311828 127% => 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.