Some people say that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled. They say that the only way to increase recycling is for the government to make it a legal requirement.
To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste?
It is true that the quantity of recycled domestic waste is inadequate in many parts of the world. Therefore, a school of thought holds that the authority should force people to recycle their household refuse. While this thinking is somewhat justifiable, I personally lean towards the viewpoint of enacting a law is not the only way to promote recycling.
There are many compelling reasons why some people subscribe to the view that making recycling compulsory will encourage people to recycle. In light of the geographical distance between residential areas and recycling plants, many families find it time-consuming and annoying to recycle their trash on a daily basis. This is not to mention the difficulty when it comes to separating recyclable waste from disposable ones. By making recycling a legal obligation, the government could punish people who are failed to adhere to this law, ranging from small fines to colossal economical fines. This measure would motivate people to obey the new regulation and deliberately engage in the process to avoid any legal punishments.
However, I believe that there are more actions that government could do than simply enacting a recycling law. In fact, the lack of knowledge and awareness about the environmental impact of household waste is the primary reason for the insignificant amount of recycling actions. Rather than punishing people, it would be more effective if the governing bodies put education at the center of this campaign. For instance, children and adults could be taught about recycling and the repercussion of domestic rubbish without being processed for the environment in school and through the media. Such an effort could encourage people to make a habit of recycling in pursuit of a clean and trash-free environment, without incurring discontent and nuisance among the masses when compared to the punishments.
To conclude, while the potential benefit of enforcing a law seems to make it a good idea, I can affirm that educating people about the benefits of recycling and the consequences of household rubbish would be more suitable.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-06 | viethoangpham | 73 | view |
| 2022-08-06 | viethoangpham | 73 | view |
- Some people say that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled They say that the only way to increase recycling is for the government to make it a legal requirement To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their wast 73
- Studies suggest that many teenagers these days prefer socialising online to meeting one another in person Why do you think this is the case What measures could be taken to encourage teenagers to spend more time meeting one another in person Give reasons f 67
- Some people say that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled They say that the only way to increase recycling is for the government to make it a legal requirement To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their wast 73
- Nowadays people depend on technology in their free time 78
- Computers are often argued to be the most important invention of the last hundred years To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 355, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... not the only way to promote recycling. There are many compelling reasons why so...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, so, therefore, while, for instance, in fact, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 41.998997996 119% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1776.0 1615.20841683 110% => OK
No of words: 336.0 315.596192385 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28571428571 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28139028586 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90933846148 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 176.041082164 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.556547619048 0.561755894193 99% => OK
syllable_count: 560.7 506.74238477 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.0560810663 49.4020404114 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.857142857 106.682146367 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 20.7667163134 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.85714285714 7.06120827912 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.39896248079 0.244688304435 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.13520780174 0.084324248473 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0537531223629 0.0667982634062 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.234469790975 0.151304729494 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0632230384528 0.056905535591 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 13.0946893788 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 50.2224549098 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.4159519038 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.39 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 78.4519038076 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.