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 a 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?
It goes without saying that in today’s sophisticated world that we live in, the environment is hurt by some negative human activities. Finding some solutions to prevent environmental degradation is becoming a vital issue today. A controversial question, which is often raised regarding this issue, is some people hold the idea that compelling companies to pay a higher tax or a higher fine is the best solution to this problem. However, some others believe, there are better solutions to stop the companies from harming the environment. I personally agree with the latter view. In the lines below, I present and explain two main reasons to support this thesis
The first exquisite point that can be mentioned here is, the government can grant companies some incentives and other financial assistance to provide the latest technologies to reduce the harmful effects of their activity. This attitude regarding the issue, not only does reduce the main negative impacts of industries on the environment, but also helps the economy of the country. Imagine a factory that plenty of workers and staff working there, so with having the punishment- approach, business owners have to downsize their staff to afford tax expenditures. Conversely, with motivating companies to endeavor more regarding environmental issues, we can handle both sides of the matter.
Furthermore, governments can surveillance polluting industries constantly. To be more specific, they can measure and monitor amounts of pollutants which these companies release into the air or water, and if they have nonstandard pollutants, oblige them to impose the latest anti-pollution technologies in their plants. As proof for these points, one can point out recent and comprehensible research that is relevant to this discussion. A number of eminent researchers at the University of Tehran's center for environmental studies have concluded that the controlling approach of government, benefits more than impose high taxes or fines. On average, it can be argued that, in the recent two decades, companies, which have been monitored continually, have 30% less contamination in comparison with ones that have paid fines and higher taxes. The researchers attribute this result in the attitude among the second group of companies, which they have felt that they can pass the hurdles with money, and they have not to solve their environmental issue.
In conclusion, taking all the aforementioned arguments into consideration, it can be concluded that if we see the issue holistically, governments should encourage pollutant industries by granting some financial assistance to utilize the fewer pollutant devices, and surveillance their activity process continuously.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 660, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... two main reasons to support this thesis The first exquisite point that can be me...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 545, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to tax'
Suggestion: to tax
... have to downsize their staff to afford tax expenditures. Conversely, with motivati...
^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e can handle both sides of the matter. Furthermore, governments can surveillanc...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, first, furthermore, however, if, regarding, second, so, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 15.1003584229 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 9.8082437276 102% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 13.8261648746 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.0286738351 136% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 43.0788530466 88% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 52.1666666667 102% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.0752688172 198% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2310.0 1977.66487455 117% => OK
No of words: 418.0 407.700716846 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.52631578947 4.8611393121 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52162009685 4.48103885553 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10135701417 2.67179642975 116% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 212.727598566 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569377990431 0.524837075471 108% => OK
syllable_count: 722.7 618.680645161 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 9.59856630824 83% => OK
Article: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.6003584229 78% => 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: 26.0 20.1344086022 129% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 76.0048312609 48.9658058833 155% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.375 100.406767564 144% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.125 20.6045352989 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 5.45110844103 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => 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: 0.157418392157 0.236089414692 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0526565171352 0.076458572812 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0590293098021 0.0737576698707 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0936695959436 0.150856017488 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0714273563103 0.0645574589148 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 11.7677419355 150% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 58.1214874552 63% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 10.1575268817 144% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.09 10.9000537634 138% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.8 8.01818996416 122% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 86.8835125448 148% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.0537634409 123% => 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: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.