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?
Among piles of social catastrophes, environmental degradation is no doubt the utmost issue needing urgent solutions, which inclines some individuals to claim that raising fuel prices is a panacea for all ills. Though I partially comprehend certain views towards such argument, I strongly believe that this measure is, by and large, far from being the best.
At first glance, a dramatic increase in fuel prices will certainly bring forward a few possible ramifications over fuel consumption regarding both environment pollution and climate change. The higher petrol prices are set, as an example, the less people attempt to burn for commuting, thereby alleviating air pollution from vehicles and somewhat easing off the carbon footprint. That is to say, in the act of such extravagant expenditure on traveling, more people undoubtedly will grab public transportation or even cycling in favour of financial saving and a modest contribution to protect the atmosphere from a great deal of toxic exhaust gas. Additionally, not only will numerous roads be relieved from traffic congestion, but also an eco-friendly practice of cycling will benefit humans with a healthy lifestyle.
On the other hand, despite its constructive influences in response to air contamination, this policy is merely a transitory measure and, more often than not, does little to either address the chronic pollution or diminish other threats to the environmental balance. In fact, the implementation of higher fuel price is very much likely to play a heavier burden on citizens, especially those from developing countries, whose lives have struggled enough without the addition of gas bills. This, coupled with such cost escalation of other essential commodities, will certainly constitute a counterproductive situation as it may potentially provoke the community’s disagreement and resentment against the governments. From this point of view, raising costs itself will not decelerate the environmental issues, instead governments should consider other alternative methods by boosting their investments in renewable energy sources, imposing radical crackdowns on smoke emission from factories or introducing tax incentives for the community to go green.
To summarize, I unquestionably refute the view described in the statement. Pushing up fuel expenditure is unnecessary, whereas the environmental problems would remain unsolved, not to mention other social deterioration resulting from the exorbitant expense. Thus, both individuals and governments should take into consideration other feasible instruments in regard to a sustainable and energy-efficient development.
- When choosing a job the salary is the most important consideration To what extent do you agree or disagree 89
- The first chart below shows how energy is used in an average Australian household. The second chart shows the greenhouse gas emissions which result from this energy use.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make compa 73
- Some scientists believe that studying the behavior of 3 year old children can tell which children would grow up to be criminals To what extent in your opinion is crime a product of human nature and is it possible to stop children from growing up to be cri 89
- 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? 89
- Some people think that a huge amount of money is spent on the protection of wild animals, and that this money should be better spent on human population. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 243, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...trol prices are set, as an example, the less people attempt to burn for commuting, t...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, regarding, so, thus, whereas, in fact, no doubt, by and large, in regard to, on the other hand, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 41.998997996 129% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 8.3376753507 276% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2262.0 1615.20841683 140% => OK
No of words: 389.0 315.596192385 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.81491002571 5.12529762239 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44106776838 4.20363070211 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.31761194112 2.80592935109 118% => OK
Unique words: 261.0 176.041082164 148% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.670951156812 0.561755894193 119% => OK
syllable_count: 696.6 506.74238477 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 29.0 20.2975951904 143% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 62.0178443494 49.4020404114 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 174.0 106.682146367 163% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.9230769231 20.7667163134 144% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.5384615385 7.06120827912 149% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => 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: 0.0943136176565 0.244688304435 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0313655384843 0.084324248473 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0315143262395 0.0667982634062 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0566393223364 0.151304729494 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0125582004258 0.056905535591 22% => 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: 20.9 13.0946893788 160% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 25.12 50.2224549098 50% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.0 11.3001002004 150% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.01 12.4159519038 137% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.64 8.58950901804 124% => OK
difficult_words: 137.0 78.4519038076 175% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.78957915832 148% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.1190380762 134% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.7795591182 158% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.