With the development of industry, consuming more fossil fuels, and producing more greenhouse gas, environmental problems like climate change are becoming severe, influencing the survival of humans and animals. Therefore, for the sustainable development of the earth, we have to take action to protect the natural environment. It’s accustomed to learning that individuals are frequently trapped in continual conflicts with inner contradictions, thus it is reasonable that quite a few citizens endorse that it is more effective to recycle and reuse objects, while others prefer to buy organic foods grown without pesticides. Personally, I hold the counterargument that walking or bicycling instead of driving a car to work or school is a better approach instead. There are several reasons why I feel this way, which I will explore in the following essay.
What must be prioritized is that I have noticed that it is persuasive to lend credence to the idea that walking and bicycling benefit personal development, by improving physical health and saving more money. Initially, walking and bicycling is a favorable way to promote physical health. To be more specific, most individuals, especially those who work in the “996” schedule, don’t have enough time to exercise; in contrast, if they walk or bicycle to work, not only can save their time, but also strengthen physical health. It is the same for the student. Moreover, more expense will be saved if we walk or bicycle to work. In detail, as we know, money spent on commuting makes a large part of the daily expenses, partly because of the high price of gas oil; however, if people walk or bicycle to work, they will save a great amount of money which can be used to promote their life quality by traveling and entertaining. Consequently, the claim that walking and bicycling benefit personal development is justified.
Another vehicle to my perspective is that recycling and reusing objects or buying organic food might cause plenty of undesirable side effects, although they are helpful to some extent. To begin with, protecting the environment for individuals doesn’t mean we should give up the convenience of daily life. To further explain it, reused objects are usually unsuitable for further using and recycling always spend a lot of extra time; on the contrary, if you throw them in the trash can, there will be better categorized and recycled by the specific company. Furthermore, locally grown, organic foods are usually expensive due to the higher cost and fewer supplies. Specifically, not all individuals can afford them and they can’t fulfill the large demand in quantity; on the other hand, foods, produced in large scale, are as cheap as most people could pay. Accordingly, there is little doubt that both reusing objects and buying organic foods are not completely useful in our daily life.
To sum up, frankly, sometimes it is really hard to tell whether my opinion outweighs one of the others, especially given the complicated situation describe above. However, after weighty consideration, I deeply believe the conclusion that walking and bicycling are more environmentally friendly than recycling and reusing objects and buying organic food for individuals.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, consequently, frankly, furthermore, however, if, moreover, really, so, then, therefore, thus, while, i feel, in contrast, on the contrary, to begin with, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 15.1003584229 166% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 9.8082437276 133% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 13.8261648746 174% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.0286738351 127% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 43.0788530466 95% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 52.1666666667 111% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.0752688172 136% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2732.0 1977.66487455 138% => OK
No of words: 520.0 407.700716846 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25384615385 4.8611393121 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77530192783 4.48103885553 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89536203294 2.67179642975 108% => OK
Unique words: 294.0 212.727598566 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565384615385 0.524837075471 108% => OK
syllable_count: 854.1 618.680645161 138% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 1.0 3.08781362007 32% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.51792114695 199% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.94265232975 223% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 20.1344086022 129% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 74.0951415411 48.9658058833 151% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.6 100.406767564 136% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.0 20.6045352989 126% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.3 5.45110844103 189% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 11.8709677419 93% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.221985778074 0.236089414692 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0646731505629 0.076458572812 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0434759516539 0.0737576698707 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1144073748 0.150856017488 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0342793895055 0.0645574589148 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 11.7677419355 139% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 58.1214874552 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 10.1575268817 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.47 10.9000537634 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.01818996416 113% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 86.8835125448 155% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 10.002688172 155% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.0537634409 123% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.247311828 156% => 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.