Environment pollution is too alarming to be managed by individuals. Real change can be made at the government level. What extent do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, environmental pollution has become a controversial issue all around the world owing to many facts. Although many people think it is society's responsibility to prevent this problem and take the initiative toward it, the role of governments could not be overestimated. While I am highly inclined to believe that individual’s action could be beneficial, the majority actions should be taken by authorities. This essay will analyze both sides before concluding.
On the one hand, there are several reasons why I support that governments should make a significant change. Firstly, an array of evidence proves that authorities have the primary power to stop industries from infecting environment with industrial waste. Secondly, there is an essential valid logic to support that governments could restrict them by imposing strict legislation. For instance, an academic research conducted by Tehran University proved that imported low quality and cheap fuels could have many adverse effects on the environment by increasing the amount of greenhouse gases. Therefore, the result revealed that not only political role positively correlated with decreasing the environmental damage, but also could be impressing in the future.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that individual’s role against environmental pollution is highly beneficial. People every day increasing the amount of carbon dioxide emission. For example, results originating from a scientific research conducted by Melbourne University prove that tremendous amount of CO2 gas could lead to raising the temperature of the earth which is negatively related to melting the polar ice and rising the sea level.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments about who is responsible the most for environment pollution, my sentiment is that the role of political power far outweighs the society’s figure. However, both should work on this issue to prepare a free pollution future for next generation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 730, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...he environmental damage, but also could be impressing in the future. On the other hand, th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, for example, for instance, no doubt, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.5418719212 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 6.10837438424 164% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 8.36945812808 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 5.94088669951 185% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 20.9802955665 86% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 31.9359605911 110% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.75862068966 208% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1700.0 1207.87684729 141% => OK
No of words: 300.0 242.827586207 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.66666666667 5.00649968141 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 3.92707691288 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17315825848 2.71678728327 117% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 139.433497537 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.616666666667 0.580463131201 106% => OK
syllable_count: 543.6 379.143842365 143% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.6157635468 43% => OK
Article: 5.0 1.56157635468 320% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 1.71428571429 175% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 3.65517241379 82% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 12.6551724138 111% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.5024630542 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.2035295573 50.4703680194 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.428571429 104.977214359 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4285714286 20.9669160288 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.57142857143 7.25397266985 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 6.9802955665 86% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 2.75862068966 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 2.91625615764 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.107203378346 0.242375264174 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0344901867474 0.0925447433944 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0268164170338 0.071462118173 38% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.061658404753 0.151781067708 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.03294174969 0.0609392437508 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 12.6369458128 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 53.1260098522 63% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 10.9458128079 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.61 11.5310837438 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.94 8.32886699507 119% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 55.0591133005 182% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.94827586207 90% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.3980295567 100% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.5123152709 152% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 76.5 Out of 90
---------------------
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.