Reducing global environmental damage should be handled by governments rather than individuals. To what extent do you agree or
It is undeniable that human activity directly or indirectly increases environmental damage. However, a plethora of people contents that government should handle the environmental damage and others disagree with the statement. Not surprisingly, the number of controversies over this issue is overwhelmed. Among this controversy, personally I believed that individuals should oversee the problem. I feel this way for several reasons I will expound subsequent followings.
To commence with, if people aware of their activity then damage can be reduced. They can easily protect their vicinity from being pollution and some volunteer work might be reduced the damage. My personal experience is a compelling example of this. When I was in high school, I lived in a village where many loam factory located. Thus, the owner of the factory used the water of the river for washing the fabric but did not dump the waste properly. Therefore, most of the pond was polluted by the colour of the process water. So, one day I and some of my school friends protested against this activity and started to clean the place and other village members also joined. Thus, an individual's awareness can also reduce global damage.
Furthermore, if individual people constrain their daily activity then damage can also be declined. For example, in the city of the Dhaka, most of the people are not aware of their activity. They are throwing waste, plastic containers here and there. As a result, they are blocking the drainage system and the city is flooded with a little rain. Moreover, plastic damaging the fertility of the soil and declining the growth of the crops. Besides, the rapid expansion of industry, transportation polluted the city by releasing the smoke and sound. But, if individual people are aware of this issue they can easily reduce this environmental damage.
To recapitulate, I am on the opinion that if an individual should be concerned about the damage then global damage can easily be brought in a limit.
- The fact that technology is outpacing the needs of those in cultures that can afford the technologycreates cultures of excess consumerism.16
- Government funding for pure science endeavors, such as space exploration, should bereduced in order to direcct more funding towards humanitarian science projects.50
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Television advertising directed towards young children (aged two to five) should not be allowed.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer73
- Animal fossils3
- People who pursue their own intellectual interests for purely personal reasons are more likelyto benefit the rest of the world than are people who try to act for the public good.50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 304, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun loam seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much loam', 'a good deal of loam'.
Suggestion: much loam; a good deal of loam
...high school, I lived in a village where many loam factory located. Thus, the owner of the...
Line 5, column 682, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'individuals'' or 'individual's'?
Suggestion: individuals'; individual's
...r village members also joined. Thus, an individuals awareness can also reduce global damage...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, then, therefore, thus, for example, i feel, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 15.1003584229 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 9.8082437276 112% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 13.8261648746 80% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.0286738351 54% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 43.0788530466 67% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 52.1666666667 65% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.0752688172 74% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1688.0 1977.66487455 85% => OK
No of words: 328.0 407.700716846 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.14634146341 4.8611393121 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25567506705 4.48103885553 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80963938401 2.67179642975 105% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 212.727598566 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.545731707317 0.524837075471 104% => OK
syllable_count: 544.5 618.680645161 88% => 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: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.51792114695 142% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6003584229 102% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 20.1344086022 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 25.3870715397 48.9658058833 52% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 80.380952381 100.406767564 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.619047619 20.6045352989 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.47619047619 5.45110844103 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 11.8709677419 42% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 3.85842293907 337% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.166508724196 0.236089414692 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0469302203583 0.076458572812 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0671661186718 0.0737576698707 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121762398094 0.150856017488 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0508389038002 0.0645574589148 79% => OK
automated_readability_index: 10.6 11.7677419355 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 58.1214874552 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.1575268817 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.29 10.9000537634 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.01818996416 106% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 86.8835125448 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.002688172 80% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.0537634409 80% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
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: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.