The best way to solve the world’s environmental problems is to increase the cost of fuel for cars and other vehicles. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The proliferation of modern transport vehicles is the main culprit of innumerable problems to the environment. It is suggested that the optimum method to alleviate the negative implications of automobiles and other transport vehicles on the environment is to raise the cost of fossil fuels. I somewhat disagree with this view as the higher prices of fuels may spell trouble for people and society as a whole, even though it may discourage the utilization of cars.
The increase in fuel cost is a harbinger of degradation of living standards of underprivileged individuals and economy deterioration. It is a fact that the fuel cost constitutes a large portion of the expenditure of the impoverished. The rise of the cost will prevent the less well-off from purchasing other necessities such as food or education, thereby decreasing their quality of life. More importantly, the upsurge in the price of fuels takes its toll on the material wealth of society. Fuel is one of the foremost commodities playing a key role as an important input of many domains of businesses. The increase in the price of the merchandise will subsequently lead to inflation, the phenomenon that the cost of all goods goes up simultaneously. By increasing the cost of fossil fuels, the authorities not only place million lives of the poor at risk but threaten economic stability.
Admittedly, there are certain environmental merits associated with boosting the price of fuel for vehicles. One of the virtues worth mentioning is that it can ameliorate the effects of over-reliance on cars, producing hazardous fumes and leaving a myriad of carbon footprints, the main contributors to ecological equilibrium destabilization. The approach, however, may be the precursor to many societal and economical issues. It thus brings more harm than good to humanity.
In sum, I mostly object to the perspective that increasing fuel costs will help tackle environmental issues. While this suggestion is valid to some extent, it has adverse impacts on poor citizens and jeopardizes the prosperity of nations.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-10 | tsln7607 | 78 | view |
| 2023-06-21 | Giang Tran | 84 | view |
| 2023-06-21 | Giang Tran | 78 | view |
| 2023-06-20 | Giang Tran | 78 | view |
| 2023-06-15 | Anhhhhhh | 78 | view |
- Young people who commit crimes should be treated the same way as adults To what extent do you agree or disagree 78
- Everyone should stay at school until 18 To what extent do you agree or disagree 89
- All fathers should be entitled to time off from work when their children are born What is your opinion 73
- Nowadays people use bicycles less as a form of transport Why is that What can we do to encourage people to use bicycles more 78
- Some people think that all teenagers should be required to do unpaid work in their free time to help the local community They believe this would benefit both the individual teenager and society as a whole Do you agree or disagree 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 823, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a million'.
Suggestion: a million
...l fuels, the authorities not only place million lives of the poor at risk but threaten ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 408, Rule ID: ECONOMICAL_ECONOMIC[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economic' (=connected with economy)?
Suggestion: economic
...y be the precursor to many societal and economical issues. It thus brings more harm than g...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, so, thus, well, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 41.998997996 124% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1750.0 1615.20841683 108% => OK
No of words: 332.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27108433735 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.2685907696 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.24942350035 2.80592935109 116% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 176.041082164 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.58734939759 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 554.4 506.74238477 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 9.0 2.52805611222 356% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.0682109793 49.4020404114 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.375 106.682146367 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.75 20.7667163134 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.3125 7.06120827912 47% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => 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: 0.231573177724 0.244688304435 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0674048675564 0.084324248473 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0471743261884 0.0667982634062 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127494102393 0.151304729494 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0457941371962 0.056905535591 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.0946893788 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 50.2224549098 85% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.4159519038 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.72 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 78.4519038076 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.78957915832 128% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => 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.