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.
Many would assert that imposing strict limits on trash can mitigate environmental issues. In some senses, it's clear that unchecked consumer waste contributes to these problems. However, by emphasizing consumer restrictions, we might overlook the potential risks, such as encouraging illegal dumping and underestimating the impact of corporate waste.
Admittedly, few would argue against the idea that curbing household waste can positively impact the environment. For instance, by enhancing consumer awareness, we often see more tangible results than merely imposing restrictions on businesses. Recycling initiatives serve as an apt example; they not only reduce individual waste but also promote the use of recycled products. These policies thus educate the public on the gravity of waste issues, leading to a decline in overall waste. The key takeaway is that measures targeting consumers do indeed have a positive environmental impact.
Yet, we cannot ignore the unintended consequences of such regulations. With strict trash limits, there's the potential to incentivize illegal dumping as residents seek to evade penalties or additional charges. For instance, when faced with extra fees for excess waste, some individuals might resort to disposing of their trash unlawfully, exacerbating the very problem the policy aimed to address. This highlights the need for a more balanced approach.
Moreover, focusing solely on consumer waste sidesteps a significant culprit: corporate pollution. Large corporations often generate substantial waste, sometimes with harmful pollutants that dwarf household waste in terms of environmental impact. A case in point is the wastewater crisis in Korea, which affected numerous individuals. Such instances underscore the importance of also directing regulatory efforts towards businesses.
In conclusion, while there are undeniable advantages to limiting consumer waste, the potential for illicit practices and the significant impact of corporate waste make it clear that a singular focus on household waste isn't the ultimate solution. We must take a holistic approach, considering both individual and corporate contributions, to truly address environmental concerns.
| 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 |
- Formal education tends to restrain our minds and spirits rather than set them free 66
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 54
- Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances times and places 66
- 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 66
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 98, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: there's
... regulations. With strict trash limits, theres the potential to incentivize illegal du...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 219, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...hat a singular focus on household waste isnt the ultimate solution. We must take a h...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, moreover, so, thus, while, for instance, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 19.5258426966 15% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 14.8657303371 34% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 33.0505617978 51% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 58.6224719101 58% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1899.0 2235.4752809 85% => OK
No of words: 317.0 442.535393258 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.9905362776 5.05705443957 118% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.55969084622 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10380919867 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 215.323595506 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.640378548896 0.4932671777 130% => OK
syllable_count: 609.3 704.065955056 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.59117977528 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.6076171318 60.3974514979 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.5 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6111111111 23.4991977007 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.16666666667 5.21951772744 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 5.13820224719 234% => 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: 0.229181135139 0.243740707755 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0653227066147 0.0831039109588 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0496305389052 0.0758088955206 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126659413481 0.150359130593 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0223104856752 0.0667264976115 33% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 28.84 48.8420337079 59% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.5 12.1743820225 111% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.17 12.1639044944 141% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.56 8.38706741573 126% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 100.480337079 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.