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 environmental pollution has sparked an ongoing controversy, which inevitably leads to a moot question “is it too alarming to be managed by individuals?”. Whereas it is a widely held view that real change can be made at the government level, I will discuss controversial aspects of that throughout this essay.
From the environmental standpoint, poor sanitation is bound up inextricably with being polluted, which indicates they lead to both soil degradation and oil spills. As a well-known example, a longitudinal study conducted by eminent scientists in 2014 demonstrates the relationship between environmental factors and hectic lifestyle as well as an exponential increase in ecological issues. Their academic criticism was impressive. Consequently, my empirical evidence presented thus far supports the contention that the likelihood of drastic impact is correlated positively with not only globalization but also environmental policy reform.
Within the realm of society, without the slightest doubt, tackling climate change attribute to combating negative consequences of pollution, in that it would come down to underground waters, NGOs, and the general public. A salient example of such attribution is a hidden agenda, which is a cause for concern since it was mistaken to take a long-term solution for granted. Had there been a paradigm shift earlier, scholars might have had the opportunity to pinpoint current system problems. Besides, this criterion is an indispensable part of modern lifestyle. Hence, it is reasonable to infer the pivotal role of surveillance.
To conclude, as for myself, as the saying goes “all’s well that ends well,” after analyzing what elaborated above, I firmly believe that it is both the government and individuals responsibilities. However, with the benefit of hindsight, we conceive the more we research, the further we discover.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 206, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...wn to underground waters, NGOs, and the general public. A salient example of such attribution ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, consequently, hence, however, if, so, thus, well, whereas, as for, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.5418719212 142% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 6.10837438424 65% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 20.9802955665 110% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 31.9359605911 116% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.75862068966 226% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1633.0 1207.87684729 135% => OK
No of words: 288.0 242.827586207 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.67013888889 5.00649968141 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 3.92707691288 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.35397076435 2.71678728327 123% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 139.433497537 143% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.694444444444 0.580463131201 120% => OK
syllable_count: 503.1 379.143842365 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.57093596059 108% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.6157635468 152% => OK
Article: 4.0 1.56157635468 256% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 1.71428571429 175% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 3.65517241379 164% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 12.6551724138 103% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.5024630542 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.0389419978 50.4703680194 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.615384615 104.977214359 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1538461538 20.9669160288 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.46153846154 7.25397266985 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 6.9802955665 100% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 2.75862068966 145% => 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: 0.177781297727 0.242375264174 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0490479175242 0.0925447433944 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0879221731825 0.071462118173 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115993372411 0.151781067708 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.149546387147 0.0609392437508 245% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 12.6369458128 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.1260098522 77% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.9458128079 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.61 11.5310837438 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.81 8.32886699507 130% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 55.0591133005 202% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 16.5 9.94827586207 166% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.3980295567 104% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.5123152709 105% => 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.