Some people say that economic growth is the only way to end world poverty and hunger Others say that economic growth is damaging the environment and should stop Discuss b the views and give your own opinion
Ever since civilization, people are craving to flourish their lives through economic activities. Whereas some people believe that economic growth is the only way to eradicate poverty, others think that today's economic growth imposes a heavy burden on the environment, and they should slow it down. In my opinion, I reckon that it is critically important to keep sustainable economic growth rather than slowing it down for two reasons, which I will explore in the following essay.
First and foremost, a sustainable economic growth strategy generates job opportunities and hence a higher demand for labor, which allows the poor to participate fully in the job market. To be more specific, a strong economy creates lots of diversified activities that accommodate millions of people to work, which secure a decent quality of life and move them away from poverty. For example, China alone has lifted millions of people out of poverty, and its economic growth was crucial to the enormous reduction of poverty. Moreover, most developed countries with sustained growth provide their citizens with all the required necessities to live a high-quality life away from poverty. On the other hand, countries with slow economic progress suffer a high unemployment rate with all the undesirable consequences associated with it, which mostly is hunger, crime, and sometimes civil wars over food. As you can see, economic growth is the most effective way to pull people out of poverty and deliver on the ultimate objective of a better life.
Secondly, the management of the environmental drawbacks can go abreast with economic growth. In other words, integrated efforts between countries over the globe and the people can put limits an end to deterioration of the environmental drawbacks. For instance, industrialization and means of transportations are the fundamental emitters of pollution and global warming. Governments should enforce laws and raise taxes on these types of factories and facilitate investment in industries that use clean and renewable natural resources. Also, they can collaborate with media platforms and educational institutes to increase social awareness on how and why we should conserve our resources for the next generations. Besides, they can encourage planting trees and put constraints on deforestation, which enhances the absorption of harmful green gases. Frankly, governments have the upper hand to manage all environmental issues, but not at the expense of economic growth.
In conclusion, I believe that slowing down economic growth is not an appropriate solution to environmental hazards. Not only because it provides job opportunities, which protect us from poverty, but also governments can manage all environmental issues.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
Ever since civilization, people are crav...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... will explore in the following essay. First and foremost, a sustainable econom...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e ultimate objective of a better life. Secondly, the management of the environm...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ot at the expense of economic growth. In conclusion, I believe that slowing do...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, frankly, hence, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, whereas, for example, for instance, i reckon, in conclusion, in my opinion, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 15.1003584229 60% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 9.8082437276 102% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 13.8261648746 130% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 43.0788530466 63% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 52.1666666667 113% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.0752688172 161% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2327.0 1977.66487455 118% => OK
No of words: 424.0 407.700716846 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.48820754717 4.8611393121 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53775939005 4.48103885553 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06824938375 2.67179642975 115% => OK
Unique words: 244.0 212.727598566 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575471698113 0.524837075471 110% => OK
syllable_count: 738.9 618.680645161 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.86738351254 268% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.3011805577 48.9658058833 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.277777778 100.406767564 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5555555556 20.6045352989 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.4444444444 5.45110844103 192% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 11.8709677419 101% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => 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: 0.253328518576 0.236089414692 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0852996517158 0.076458572812 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0765017417509 0.0737576698707 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.165011823711 0.150856017488 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0776288478899 0.0645574589148 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 11.7677419355 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 58.1214874552 68% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 10.1575268817 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.86 10.9000537634 136% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.69 8.01818996416 121% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 86.8835125448 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.5 10.002688172 165% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.247311828 166% => 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: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.