Some cities create housing areas by providing taller buildings. Others create housing by building houses on a wider area of land. What solution is better?
Overpopulation has led to a certain number of problems such as lack of food, depletion of resources and especially the increasing demand for accommodations. Abundance of urban areas have also devised two possible solutions to the housing problem. Some have decided to construct higher and larger buildings while others build houses on larger size lands. Personally, I believe that addressing the accommodation crisis with gigantic constructions is more viable since the other option can wreak havoc upon the environment.
Taller housings can also be called apartments and these are capable of accommodating hundreds of households. The building plan is thought to be compact since it does not consume the majority of space and more floors can also be added further in the construction progress. Additionally, the strategy allows more efficient management methods. The city government can evaluate and allocate a sufficient amount of energy usage to each home, which can tackle the arising problems with the disappearance of natural resources. However, this policy is even more useful for countries with smaller lands. For example, Singapore has been known for its lack of landmasses and to compensate for this, the authorities here chose to build more apartments for its high population, allowing public services to spread more around the country.
Creating more homes in wider areas, however, will negatively influence the environment. As make allowances for more human accommodations, the natural habitats are destroyed and local species are probably extinct as a result. In fact, the world’s statistics reveal that deforestation is mostly caused by accommodation expansion instead of wildfires. House owners can dispose of their daily garbage anywhere as long as it is convenient for them instead of a general trash disposal site built around the apartment blocks. This will destroy the city sceneries and may lead to numerous infectious diseases that transmit airborne and waterborne. In Shanghai, the atmosphere is polluted not only by its industrial smoke but also by house owners’ one. The air inflicts damage to individuals’ lungs and emits odor to the surroundings.
In conclusion, I believe that since mankind has been inflated their territory to nature, it is high time we compressed. Therefore, countries should allow more apartments built as it seems to be the most possible solution to our ecosystem’s current status.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-05-23 | Awadhesh Mourya | 78 | view |
- Many countries import large amount of food from other parts of the world Is this a positive or negative development 89
- As a part of education students should spend a period of time living in another country to learn its language and culture To what extent do you agree or disagree 89
- Researching And Treating Diseases Is Too Costly So It Would Be Better To Invest In Preventive Measures 61
- Some people say that it is possible to tell a lot about person s culture and character from their choice of clothes Do you agree or disagree 61
- Nowadays families move to different countries for work Some people think it has a negative effect on children while others disagree Discuss both views and give your own opinion 56
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, may, so, therefore, while, for example, in conclusion, in fact, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 41.998997996 107% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2070.0 1615.20841683 128% => OK
No of words: 378.0 315.596192385 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.47619047619 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40933352052 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03390598699 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 176.041082164 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.616402116402 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 648.0 506.74238477 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 2.52805611222 316% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.5288447605 49.4020404114 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.947368421 106.682146367 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8947368421 20.7667163134 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.47368421053 7.06120827912 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 3.9879759519 226% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.18059832815 0.244688304435 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0512831538802 0.084324248473 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0691110885296 0.0667982634062 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103266539072 0.151304729494 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0738353864003 0.056905535591 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.0946893788 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.5 12.4159519038 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.01 8.58950901804 117% => OK
difficult_words: 130.0 78.4519038076 166% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.