Some people think that to reduce traffic and pollution, the government should increase tax on petrol (gasoline). Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
In recent years, the increased taxation on vehicle fuel has been gaining a great deal of attention throughout the world as an approach to resolve the burning issue of pollution as well as congestion at roads. Most importantly, the issue has been a bone of contention among the critics either it really helps to sort out the bottlenecks as well as to answer the environmental crisis. While some experts believe that it is really beneficial to resolve the ongoing climate issues as well as the traffic conditions, however, I would contend that this approach is not that much realistic and there are far more ways to redress the balance.
To begin with, it is said that once the taxation is raised, it will directly impact on our habit to use fuel. Therefore, people will start spending wisely on fuel and thus the load on petrol or gasoline will be more meticulous. This in turn, will reduce the burden on environment as the unnecessary vehicle movement will be declined. Moreover, the awareness of the mass people will be raised and they will start using the public transport or communal car-pooling to commute. Additionally, they will develop the habit of walking for short distance travel. Hence, the pressure on fuel will be rational and the people will be more reasonable to the mother nature. In the developed countries, for example, in Canada, the public transport system is sometimes subsidized by the government in addition to higher taxation on vehicle purchase as well as fuel. This is ultimately helping them to address the congestion as well as the pollution more practically.
Conversely, the impact on the raising the fuel price will make the mass people a hard-hit as the fare will go up in majority of the unregulated countries. Hence, the taxation will make the general commuter to suffer a lot as they will ultimately pay from their own pocket to avail transport. Furthermore, even if the usage of personal transport is compromised somewhat in response to heavy duty, the number of available public transport is limited and the increased demand will not be well-handled by the existing number of public vehicle. Most importantly, reducing the usage cannot be the solution to the congestion and pollution in a high-moving world of economy. There are far more approaches to resolve it by introducing fuel efficient cars as well as working on infrastructures of the conurbations pertaining to decentralization.
All things considered, the issue we are talking about cannot be resolved by simply imposing high taxes, rather it will create additional problems. I personally believe world leaders should focus on some other more realistic approaches to troubleshoot it.
- Recommendation letter 11
- Some people say economic development is necessary to reduce the poverty in the world. Others say that economic growth should be stop immediately to stop damaging the environment. Discuss both sides and give your opinion. 84
- You are unhappy about a plan to make your local airport bigger and increase the number of flights. You live near the airport. Write a letter to your local newspaper. In your letter explain where you live describe the problem give reasons why you do not wa 84
- Essay topics: Essay topics: You have a problem with a neighbour.Write a letter to your neighbour. In your letter1. Describe the problem2. Say how long it has been a problem3. Explain what action you want the neighbour to take 70
- You had a good meal at a local restaurant with your family. Write a letter to the newspaper to tell them about it, describe the meal you had, and why you think the restaurant is worth visiting. 81
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 203, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... and thus the load on petrol or gasoline will be more meticulous. This in turn, ...
^^
Line 7, column 23, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...entralization. All things considered, the issue we are talking about cannot be...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, furthermore, hence, however, if, moreover, really, so, therefore, thus, well, while, as to, for example, in addition, talking about, as well as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 13.1623246493 160% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 7.85571142285 255% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 24.0651302605 96% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 41.998997996 138% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 8.3376753507 240% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2249.0 1615.20841683 139% => OK
No of words: 443.0 315.596192385 140% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.07674943567 5.12529762239 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58776254615 4.20363070211 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91222110261 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 176.041082164 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.501128668172 0.561755894193 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 709.2 506.74238477 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 9.0 2.52805611222 356% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.4824010325 49.4020404114 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.944444444 106.682146367 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6111111111 20.7667163134 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.44444444444 7.06120827912 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0753996155796 0.244688304435 31% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0262763308834 0.084324248473 31% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0277334171097 0.0667982634062 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0463078085214 0.151304729494 31% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00887776787974 0.056905535591 16% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.0946893788 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 50.2224549098 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.4159519038 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.07 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 78.4519038076 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 9.78957915832 184% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 11.2359550562 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.