The only way to reduce air pollution is to increase the prices of fuels for vehicles. What is your opinion and explain with your own experiences and examples.
Recently, the phenomenon of "the only way to reduce air pollution is to increase the prices of fuels for vehicles" and its corresponding impact has sparked a long-running dispute. Whereas many people are debating the proposition that increasing the prices of fuels might be remarkably fruitful, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a remarkable number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that rising the prices of fuels can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From the climate standpoint, increasing the prices of fuels for vehicles can provide the society with profound effects, which might stem from the fact that reducing air pollution and consuming less fuels are inextricably bound up. Regarding my personal experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment that discovered the effects of cars in large cities. Thus, invaluable ramifications of both producing fuel-efficient vehicles and being a carbon-neutral can be observed.
Within the realm of economics science, without the slightest doubt, increasing the prices of fuels to reduce air pollution might exacerbate the already catastrophic consequences of economics issues. Moreover, fundamental aspects of air pollution can relate to the reality that the demerits of the quality of fuels can pertain to the lack of reusable fuels. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that if the downsides of electric cars were correlated positively with fossil fuels, the local authorities would ultimately address developed countries' problems. Hence, it is reasonable to infer the preconceived notion of other kinds of pollution.
To conclude, despite several compelling arguments on both sides, I opt to support the idea that the merits of rising the prices of fuels for vehicles in order to reduce air pollution far outweigh its downsides.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-08-07 | sattar_iust | 80 | view |
| 2019-01-26 | vv1234 | 83 | view |
- Television serves many functions Watching TV makes us relax We can learn knowledge and information from TV programs Besides TV can also be seen as a companion To what extent do you agree with this 77
- Should wealthy nations be required to share their wealth among poorer nations by providing such things as food and education Or is it the responsibility of the governments of poorer nations to look after their citizens themselves 75
- The graph below shows average carbon dioxide CO2 emissions per person in the United Kingdom Sweden Italy and Portugal between 1967 to 2007 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 78
- National happiness index has better performance than economic increase in a nation s development Do you agree and how to measure national happiness 77
- There are many different types of music in the world today Why do we need music Is the traditional music of a country more important than the international music that is heard everywhere nowadays 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 167, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...nd its corresponding impact has sparked a long-running dispute. Whereas many people are debati...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 194, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun fuels is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...at reducing air pollution and consuming less fuels are inextricably bound up. Regard...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
hence, if, moreover, regarding, so, thus, whereas
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.5418719212 104% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 6.10837438424 164% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 20.9802955665 86% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 31.9359605911 141% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.75862068966 174% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1663.0 1207.87684729 138% => OK
No of words: 300.0 242.827586207 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.54333333333 5.00649968141 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 3.92707691288 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15117438426 2.71678728327 116% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 139.433497537 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59 0.580463131201 102% => OK
syllable_count: 518.4 379.143842365 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.57093596059 108% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 3.0 1.56157635468 192% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.71428571429 117% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 3.65517241379 164% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 12.6551724138 87% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 20.5024630542 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 52.0524211296 50.4703680194 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 151.181818182 104.977214359 144% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.2727272727 20.9669160288 130% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.45454545455 7.25397266985 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.33497536946 37% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 6.9802955665 43% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 2.75862068966 109% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 2.91625615764 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.314099983655 0.242375264174 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110124377725 0.0925447433944 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0916385432778 0.071462118173 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192998826562 0.151781067708 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.035321413485 0.0609392437508 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.3 12.6369458128 145% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 53.1260098522 67% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 10.9458128079 137% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.15 11.5310837438 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.4 8.32886699507 125% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 55.0591133005 187% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.94827586207 146% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.3980295567 123% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.5123152709 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 72.0 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.