Today the importance of recycling is not deniable among societies. Yet, public participation in separating domestic rubbish to reuse some valuable materials is not as it should be. In this regard, there is a serious controversy over increasing people engagement. Some people opine that regulating new rules by which compel people to participate are solely solution. However, I suppose other possible solutions can remedy the problem more efficiently, while legal requirements are needed to some extent.
To address this problem, need to consider the reasons behind people's reluctance. Currently, governments or municipalities determine definite instructions for classifying rubbishes according to their type. Most of the time, these instructions are perplexing. Consequently, some people are unwilling to involve in recycling programs. For example, in our area, this structure is specified by which, besides separating glass, metal, paper from each other, the resident must sorting plastics in terms of type A, b and C plastics. Apart from that carrying out this structure precisely is laborious and time-consuming, several dwellers, in particular, elderly persons, even can not distinguish between kind of stuff such as glass and plastics. As a result, recycling rarely done in our district.
As stated, the sophisticated process of recycling is a major problem for engaging people. Therefore, I think in particular problems by which establish new rules to govern the people, aggravate that problem. For instance, this is a conceivable problem that the dwellers of apartments for the rubbish of the building common area face with a lawsuit between neighborhoods. However, in my opinion, the unwillingness of citizens to participate due to the complexity of the recycling process is not acceptable, while our environment confronts serious problems that are caused by the enormous amount of rubbish in particular recyclable materials that most of them are not decomposed for a decade at minimum. I suppose the best solution relies on simplification of the recycling process and an observation regulation. Given that, regulation has to restrict the amount of consumption, setting penalization for excess consumption while seldom involve in the domestic recycling process. Besides, we can use new technology to facilitate this solution such as developing mobile apps that recognize the material type in order to help residents to separate their rubbish.
To conclude, I believe that if our solution composed of simplification and regulating then it can tackle our troubles. In my view, law has to be bounded only on the amount of consumption and sets fines to excess consumption.
- The plans below show the layout of a university's sports centre now, and how it will look after redevelopment.Summarise the Information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons whee relevant. 78
- Some people claim that not enough of the waste from home is recycled.They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal requirement.To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste? 89
- Universities should accept equal number of male and female students in every subject To what extent do you agree or disagree 50
- Some people claim that not enough of the waste from home is recycled.They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal requirement.To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste? 84
- In spite of the advances made in agriculture, many people around the world still go hungry.Why is this the case?What can be done about this problem? 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, consequently, however, if, so, then, therefore, well, while, apart from, as to, for example, for instance, i suppose, i think, in particular, kind of, such as, as a result, in my opinion, in my view
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 24.0651302605 137% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 62.0 41.998997996 148% => 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: 2272.0 1615.20841683 141% => OK
No of words: 410.0 315.596192385 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.54146341463 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49982852243 4.20363070211 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.18927411231 2.80592935109 114% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 176.041082164 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.568292682927 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 719.1 506.74238477 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 16.0721442886 131% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.1440781323 49.4020404114 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.19047619 106.682146367 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5238095238 20.7667163134 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.85714285714 7.06120827912 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.195388510446 0.244688304435 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0617540972896 0.084324248473 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0419514194153 0.0667982634062 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115731491275 0.151304729494 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.055390157419 0.056905535591 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.0946893788 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 50.2224549098 70% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.85 12.4159519038 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.74 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 78.4519038076 171% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.