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?
Recently, the phenomenon of managing too alarming environmental pollution by individuals and its corresponding impacts have sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of complex procedures is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and consequently positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that making real changes at the government level can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a general standpoint, the effects of environmental pollution such as climate change and global warming can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that crucial issues, as well as ultimate outcomes, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered current policies. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both this common phenomenon and accordingly complicated procedures apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of a public arena, the drastic actions of governments to create real change in a global scale might increase the consequences of critical needs. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of creative processes is correlated negatively with vital issues. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of this remarkable phenomenon.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of influences of the government actions in reducing the detrimental effects of alarming environmental pollution and cooperating with individuals as a help and not the main force far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of this unique phenomenon prove the significance of total outcomes, but also pinpoint thorny issues’ potential implications.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, apparently, but, consequently, hence, if, so, thus, well, while, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 6.10837438424 82% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 8.36945812808 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 20.9802955665 91% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 31.9359605911 113% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.75862068966 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1650.0 1207.87684729 137% => OK
No of words: 288.0 242.827586207 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.72916666667 5.00649968141 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 3.92707691288 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30607343049 2.71678728327 122% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 139.433497537 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.631944444444 0.580463131201 109% => OK
syllable_count: 529.2 379.143842365 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 3.0 1.56157635468 192% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 12.6551724138 87% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 20.5024630542 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 63.6845272281 50.4703680194 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.0 104.977214359 143% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1818181818 20.9669160288 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.36363636364 7.25397266985 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 6.9802955665 100% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 2.91625615764 69% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.202666401906 0.242375264174 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0664608146327 0.0925447433944 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0724920928426 0.071462118173 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113104702425 0.151781067708 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0789844202549 0.0609392437508 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.6 12.6369458128 147% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 28.17 53.1260098522 53% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 10.9458128079 144% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.25 11.5310837438 141% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.9 8.32886699507 131% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 55.0591133005 198% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.94827586207 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.3980295567 119% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.5123152709 124% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.8888888889 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 80.0 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.