Many companies sell products or services but at the same time, cause environmental damage. Someone said it could be stopped by asking them to pay the penalty, such as a higher tax when they cause the environmental damage. Others said there are better ways to stop them from harming the environment. What do you think is the best way to prevent the environment from deteriorating?
Without a shadow of doubt, companies are the most and the largest part of the industry that could have both advantages and disadvantages. An unanswered question in this area is whether penalizing the company sell products or services, which are harmful to the environment, is the best way or not. Despite the arguments asserting that penalizing is the best way, I believe otherwise, maintaining that there are some other ways that could be more helpful. In the following paragraphs, I will illustrate my viewpoint.
First and foremost, companies could habituate penalizing and have enough money for paying, so this way could not be efficacious. Profoundly changes are needed to prevent companies from selling harmful products and services, such as not letting them have the standardization seal; thereby, they would not have permission to offer them. For instance, after the production, there is a phase of accentuating the product and receiving the criteria. So if the organizations that are liable for this duty do not confirm their merchandise due to they are in the contrast of the environmentalism or keeping nature healthy, the companies will change their production methods.
Another prominent motive to be stipulated is that if people get aware enough not to use the goods that are harmful to nature, the companies will stop the line of production in this wrong way. Heighten awareness is the practical procedure in different areas needed to procession for changing something. If people know the product they are buying and using, how harmful to the earth, and as a long time could negatively affect their own and even the next generation’s health, will not buy so far. As a personal experience, I remember that when I was 13 years old, some billboards in our city started to advertise a pan as the best one ever. The pictures, the words, and the marketing methods were so impressive and led people to start buying all the products quickly. On the other side, other companies with the same line productions got so angry about reducing their selling’s. Subsequently, they made a large team and started the investigations and conveys. After a while, they could prove that the mentioned company’s goods are not healthy, and in the production stage, they used some very carcinogenic materials. Furthermore, the released fumes during manufacturing to the air are one of the most pollutants. By these discoveries, the company gets closed, and people have not used them anymore. This example clearly illustrates how conveys and awareness help people to make changes.
Reflecting upon all the aforementioned grounds, I strongly believe that penalizing is not the right way. Actually, there are more reasonable grounds that can lend weight to my point of view; but I choose to bring this essay to a close with a Persian proverb: “Accusing the times is but excusing ourselves.”
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, furthermore, if, so, while, for instance, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 15.1003584229 159% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 9.8082437276 122% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 13.8261648746 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 43.0788530466 95% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 52.1666666667 81% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.0752688172 111% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2421.0 1977.66487455 122% => OK
No of words: 472.0 407.700716846 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12923728814 4.8611393121 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6610686524 4.48103885553 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97926784274 2.67179642975 112% => OK
Unique words: 249.0 212.727598566 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.527542372881 0.524837075471 101% => OK
syllable_count: 742.5 618.680645161 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 9.59856630824 94% => OK
Article: 7.0 3.08781362007 227% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.86738351254 268% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.94265232975 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6003584229 102% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.4733232704 48.9658058833 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.285714286 100.406767564 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4761904762 20.6045352989 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.38095238095 5.45110844103 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8709677419 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.88709677419 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.206954015877 0.236089414692 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0571956623802 0.076458572812 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0467665383321 0.0737576698707 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121036760099 0.150856017488 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0536611211595 0.0645574589148 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 11.7677419355 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 58.1214874552 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.1575268817 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 10.9000537634 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.01818996416 108% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 86.8835125448 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.002688172 115% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => 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.