The best way to solve the world’s environmental problems is to increase the cost of fuel. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
These days, the profound impacts of fuel usage on the environment has been a hot issue. A school of thought believes that the foremost green step is raising the price of this energy to decrease its consumption.. However, I completely disagree with this suggestion because it is not only ineffective but also inferior to better public awareness and more sustainable substitutes.
Firstly, the great demand for fuel in human lives and development makes this solution futile. To be more precise, those who propose higher fuel cost argue that this step can encourage users to reduce the consumption of this carbon-intensive energy due to heavier financial burden. This means a shrinkage of carbon footprint, and consequently less pollution. Whereas, this scenario seems unlikely as fuel has become deeply ingrained in the majority of human activities such as transportation, production and so on. Therefore, an increase in fuel cost neither lower the need for this conventional power nor alleviate environmental problems brought by its usage.
Besides, raising awareness and renewable energies appear more feasible than exorbitantly pricing fuel. Considering the former, the governments can increase the level of subsidy to environmental campaigns to develop public consciousness of the adversity of non-renewable energy. This would encourage an eco-friendly lifestyle with various steps to protect the environment on an individual level such as using biodegradable packaging instead of plastic one, favoring public transports over private vehicles, etc. Moreover, government coffers should be allocated more to the development of renewables, for example wind and solar power. This can accelerate the switch from traditional power to greener alternatives, which would both satisfy the great energy demand in human daily lives and reverse environmental deterioration bred by carbon-intensive power.
In conclusion, higher fuel prices do not necessarily shrink the usage of this non-renewable energy and ease its negative effects. Instead, increasing public environmental consciousness and the popularity of sustainable powers appear to be more holistic remedies.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-02-21 | hoaithuongnguyen283 | 89 | view |
| 2024-02-21 | hoaithuongnguyen283 | 89 | view |
| 2024-02-20 | hoaithuongnguyen283 | 89 | view |
| 2024-02-20 | hoaithuongnguyen283 | 84 | view |
| 2024-02-20 | hoaithuongnguyen283 | 84 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 210, Rule ID: DOUBLE_PUNCTUATION
Message: Two consecutive dots
Suggestion: .
... this energy to decrease its consumption.. However, I completely disagree with thi...
^^
Line 7, column 157, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tive effects. Instead, increasing public environmental consciousness and the popu...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, consequently, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, whereas, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 41.998997996 93% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1850.0 1615.20841683 115% => OK
No of words: 319.0 315.596192385 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.79937304075 5.12529762239 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.24009360699 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 176.041082164 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.608150470219 0.561755894193 108% => OK
syllable_count: 585.9 506.74238477 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.9272992981 49.4020404114 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.333333333 106.682146367 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2666666667 20.7667163134 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.8 7.06120827912 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.119952956937 0.244688304435 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0439205548676 0.084324248473 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0434777541079 0.0667982634062 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0793216323925 0.151304729494 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0337516209611 0.056905535591 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 13.0946893788 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 50.2224549098 66% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.36 12.4159519038 132% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.22 8.58950901804 119% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 78.4519038076 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.