Many companies provide important products or services, but also damage the environment.
Some people believe that the best way to stop companies from harming the environment is to
require them to pay the penalty such as higher tax or a large fine when they cause
environmental damage. Other people think there are better ways to stop the companies from
harming the environment. Which view do you agree with and why?
Without a shadow of a doubt, a healthy environment is one of the critical factors of healthy living, which is subject to the various elements that lead to being in danger. Companies contain thousands of chemicals, many of which could contribute to adverse outcomes on the environment. An unanswered question in this area is whether penalizing these corporations could encourage them to correct themselves and their products or not. Despite some people who agree with this punishment, I strongly disagree with it. In the following paragraphs, I will illustrate my viewpoint.
First and foremost, considering penalties for those companies that harm the environment would gradually become normal. Usually, these payments are not so many that they could not pay it, or even the high taxes cannot prevent them from producing their commodities. In this case, a profound change might be effective, such as banning them and not allowing them to produce. By exerting this action, the whole company will be closed, and no more products will be released. According to some surveys, there have been around 15 companies near the Tehran province, Iran, that their process of providing merchandise was contained a chemical, which could kill that portion's vegetation. After proving this fact, all companies were closed by the government. This is why I think punishment cannot be functional, especially in the case of an emergency.
Furthermore, penalizing the companies in case of their harmful products to the environment cannot prevent people not buy their articles. They will pay some money as a penalty or high taxes, but ordinary people will never get aware of this issue. I believe the making culture and encouraging people and asking them not to buy such harmful goods, will be the solution to this problem. As a personal experience, I remember a company producing plastic bottles and selling them cheaply. People were so pleased to buy them because it paved the way for saving money for them. After some commercial advertisements on the TV and radio, all individuals heightened awareness of how harmful the product is for the environment because the decomposition of such plastics is needed millions of times. Thereby, they stop buying, and the company changed the raw materials and is using the healthier ones.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that penalizing and obligating companies to pay some money for compensating their productions harm to the environment is not the solution; for the reasons I have mentioned above.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1336, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...following the news could be beneficial. Secondly, nowadays, being in touch with ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, but, first, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, while, for instance, in conclusion, in contrast, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 15.1003584229 199% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 13.8261648746 145% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.0286738351 127% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 43.0788530466 107% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 52.1666666667 119% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.0752688172 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2378.0 1977.66487455 120% => OK
No of words: 486.0 407.700716846 119% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89300411523 4.8611393121 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69525374022 4.48103885553 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81714220437 2.67179642975 105% => OK
Unique words: 248.0 212.727598566 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510288065844 0.524837075471 97% => OK
syllable_count: 740.7 618.680645161 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 9.59856630824 115% => OK
Article: 7.0 3.08781362007 227% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.86738351254 321% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.6003584229 112% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.2001250762 48.9658058833 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.391304348 100.406767564 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1304347826 20.6045352989 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5652173913 5.45110844103 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.253071949372 0.236089414692 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0674568471152 0.076458572812 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0674248043895 0.0737576698707 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173516239241 0.150856017488 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0722004977805 0.0645574589148 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 11.7677419355 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 58.1214874552 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.1575268817 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 10.9000537634 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.01818996416 105% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 86.8835125448 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => 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: 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.