These days people in some countries are living in a “throw-away” society, which means people use things in a short time and then throw them away. What are the Causes of this and what problems can this cause?
It is said that citizens living in some nations use commodities for a short time and then discard them. This essay will examine the causes of this phenomenon and its negative impacts on human lives.
There are sufficient grounds for the escalating rate of the number of citizens living in a “throw-away” world. The primary cause for this is that generating short-lived items can benefit manufacturers. Companies and organizations producing foods or daily items may use unenvironmental-friendly materials in order to pack their products since they are cheaper than durable materials ones. For example, numerous food containers can be seen in the supermarket or convenience stores made from plastic. This means that those plastic things cannot be recycled for other purposes as a result, consumers may throw those containers away. Furthermore, the lack of interest in long-lived items can be the reason why people in some countries get rid of their old products. It stands to the reason that there is a majority number of materialistic people in our society who are likely to possess new and compelling items to show off their riches. For instance, when iPhone 13 pro-max have been released, many people may dispose of their phones which still can be used in order to purchase this Apple’s newest products.
However, a throw-away society may have various negative consequences. First and foremost, discarding non-durable goods may pollute the environment because it could contribute vitally to the increasing amount of solid waste around the world. Such an alarming issue, the government may spend a huge amount of money on the waste treatment process due to the lack of space holding waste. This means that the rate of carbon dioxide emission into the atmosphere would rise because of such an intensive waste treatment process. Moreover, this phenomenon may result in more prodigality. If citizens do not reuse or resell old ones, they will squander a huge of money spending on new things, which leads to a burden on personal finance.
In conclusion, it is reasonable for the throw-away lifestyles existing in some countries. However, this tendency may have various detrimental impacts on the environment and individuals’ finance.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-14 | thanhnga285 | 84 | view |
- The use of social media is replacing face to face interaction among many people in society Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages 84
- In their advertising businesses nowadays emphasise that their products are new in some way Why is this Do you think it is a positive or negative development 73
- The diagram below shows the process for recycling plastic bottles Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 78
- Nowadays many people choose to be self employed rather than work for a company or organization Why might this be the case What could be the disadvantages of being self employed 84
- Some people say that the government should spend more money taking care of elderly people while others think that government spending should be spent more on the education of young people Discuss both views and give your opinion 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, so, still, then, for example, for instance, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 7.85571142285 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 24.0651302605 116% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1891.0 1615.20841683 117% => OK
No of words: 358.0 315.596192385 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28212290503 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34981470047 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02958297824 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.572625698324 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 588.6 506.74238477 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.092858635 49.4020404114 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.055555556 106.682146367 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8888888889 20.7667163134 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.83333333333 7.06120827912 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 3.4128256513 205% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.307560416122 0.244688304435 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0947135072386 0.084324248473 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0670839449211 0.0667982634062 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184855311595 0.151304729494 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0715909777276 0.056905535591 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.0946893788 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 50.2224549098 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.3001002004 95% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.4159519038 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 78.4519038076 133% => 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: 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.