The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household.
Humans can play a decisive role in mitigating climate crisis. Due to the constant need for packaged consumer products, there has been a exponential increase in the amount of waste generated by households on an average. The prompt recommends that in order to solve this issue, there is a need to impose strict limits on the amount of trash that has to be accepted from each household. In my opinion, I mostly agree with this suggestion and argue that such rules should be enforced in towns and cities because of the following two reasons.
To begin, with the rise in household incomes and the increase in standards of living, more and more consumer products started flying off the shelfs. All these products come in extensive packaging and most of them need to be discarded after 2-3 months of use. For example, consider the case of daily hygeine products like soaps, wipes, toothbrushes and many more. All of these products require a lot of packaging, and also go directly to the bin after a single use. This leads to generation of huge amounts of waste that can overwhelm the waste management system of that particular town. Therefore, there is a need to impose some sort of a limit on each household, so that, the generated waste can be managed effectively.
Further, all the waste that is collected either ends in landfills or is recycled to make other products. But, as is evident from research, the amount of waste that is recycle is very little as compared to the waste that enters the landfills. Sometimes, the landfills catch fire or release toxic methane gas which exacerbates the environmental problem that we are trying to solve. Hence, it is imperative that we identify the root cause (that is the increased waste generation per household) and take strict steps to mitigate the issue.
Of course, there are valid arguments that against this proposal. One of them is that the government should not have the authority to decide the amount of waste that households discard. Moreover, if the authority refuses to collect the waste more than a certain threshold, the citizens face a challenge of as to what they are supposed to do with the extra waste. If they waste is biodegradable, they can consider composting it in their own backyard. But such solutions have their own set of cons too. In conclusion, I believe that for the sake of environmental protection, some harsh steps might be necessary to be enforced, but they should come in force after consultation with the affected parties that is the citizens of the town or the city in this case.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-19 | Juhong Park | 10 | view |
| 2023-10-19 | Juhong Park | 66 | view |
| 2023-10-18 | Juhong Park | 83 | view |
| 2023-10-18 | Juhong Park | 66 | view |
| 2023-10-18 | Juhong Park | 66 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 135, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...kaged consumer products, there has been a exponential increase in the amount of w...
^
Line 2, column 629, Rule ID: KIND_OF_A[1]
Message: Don't include 'a' after a classification term. Use simply 'sort of'.
Suggestion: sort of
...erefore, there is a need to impose some sort of a limit on each household, so that, the g...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, moreover, so, therefore, as to, for example, in conclusion, of course, sort of, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 58.6224719101 116% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2118.0 2235.4752809 95% => OK
No of words: 441.0 442.535393258 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80272108844 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58257569496 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66774431771 2.79657885939 95% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 215.323595506 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521541950113 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 675.0 704.065955056 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.6382241109 60.3974514979 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.9 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.05 23.4991977007 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 5.21951772744 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.341127906306 0.243740707755 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0875589443655 0.0831039109588 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0857430100405 0.0758088955206 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.197037580091 0.150359130593 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0634330036722 0.0667264976115 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.1392134831 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.8420337079 118% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.56 12.1639044944 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 100.480337079 100% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.