Some companies provide important products or service, but also damage environment. Some people believe that government should require more penalty, higher tax and larger fine of these companies, while others believe there are better ways. Which do you prefer?
In civilized societies, the preservation of the environment has always been considered as a major concern for governments. Beyond any doubt, it is critically important that governments control the activity of companies that are likely to harm the environment. The controversial question which arises here is whether the government should order high taxes or impose a huge fine on companies whose activities damage the environment. Personally, I believe that there are better ways that government can apply them to control the companies and consequently decrease the environmental risk. I feel this way for two reasons, which I will explore in the following essay.
First of all, lay on higher taxes or order a huge penalty on companies whose products are essential to people leads to escalating the price of their products. Generally speaking, people will pay a higher price for the goods they needed for and it may cause some financial problems for society. In fact, the result of increase in taxes and fines will end up a huge cost to the government itself to compensate for the financial issues of society. Companies are usual in the authority to determine the price of their products and if they feel any shortage in their benefits they make up for the loss by raising the prices as soon as possible.
Secondly, there are ample different effective strategies that the government should take into consideration to control the environmental problem. Governments should encourage companies to redesign their harmful products or change the technology of producing them in a way that is more environmentally friendly. Psychologically speaking, encouragement is more influential than punishment. For instance, there is a company in my countryside that produces vast products of detergent. At first, this company used to release its wastes into the adjacent river that caused a lot of harm to that nature and animal habitats. Once the government had posed a sufficient loan to them to add a biological filter to their waste outlet, they could have purified the outlet. Since they have employed that new technology, not only have they not damaged the environment anymore but also they could have improved their product and have decreased their prices because they have not had any environmental concerns anymore.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that it is great to apply some other motivated policies to control the potential harm of the companies rather than lay on high taxes or severe fines on them. This is because it can give them the chance of making new and environmentally friendly designs and also applying new technologies along with maintaining their products’ prices as the same as before.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 392, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...products’ prices as the same as before.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, if, may, second, secondly, so, for instance, i feel, in conclusion, in fact, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 15.1003584229 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 9.8082437276 112% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 13.8261648746 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.0286738351 136% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 43.0788530466 107% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 52.1666666667 102% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.0752688172 186% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2269.0 1977.66487455 115% => OK
No of words: 440.0 407.700716846 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15681818182 4.8611393121 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57997565096 4.48103885553 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97739330082 2.67179642975 111% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 212.727598566 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.502272727273 0.524837075471 96% => OK
syllable_count: 722.7 618.680645161 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.1344086022 119% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.5284002183 48.9658058833 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.055555556 100.406767564 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4444444444 20.6045352989 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.72222222222 5.45110844103 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8709677419 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
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: 0.254842347204 0.236089414692 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0837226490271 0.076458572812 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0558098717436 0.0737576698707 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154045574897 0.150856017488 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0462917408835 0.0645574589148 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 11.7677419355 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 58.1214874552 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.1575268817 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 10.9000537634 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.01818996416 109% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 86.8835125448 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 10.002688172 125% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.0537634409 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.247311828 127% => 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: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.