People think that the government should increase the cost of fuel for cars and other vehicles to solve environmental problems. Give your opinion.
Without a shadow of a doubt, whit the afoot progression and augmentation of societies, human beings are struggling with new miscellaneous upheaval-causing problems. One of which is nothing but the obviation of damage to our environment. Some are of the opinion that it is on the shoulder of incumbents that enhance the value of the fuel used in the field of transportation to eschew inflicting damage to our peripheral areas. I clearly declare although it is creditable credence, there exist so important ideas that can aid us. In the following, we discuss these notions succinctly.
On the one hand, those who are the proponents of the former credence put forward that the only way to solve environmental problems is just the growth of the cost of fuel. First and foremost, in this way, the tendency of people to exercise private vehicles considerably dwindles, intuitively giving rise to less air pollution. For example, the results of a survey conducted under the umbrella of the European union suggest that after imposing a levy on fuel, the amount of CO2 exorbitantly waned, stemming from the decline of the predilection of people to use fuel. Moreover, the more the worth of the fuel, the less the employment of the cars; accordingly, the lower the sound pollution. To this end, the improvement of fuel value bestows a boon for our environment.
Meanwhile, those concurring there are other ways except the first notion maintain that governments should avail themselves of other methods. Firstly, they are able to promulgate the possible dangers, jeopardizing us, provided we do not care about our peripheral area and annihilate it. To the best of the author's knowledge, China could prevent its nature from deterioration just via aware its people from prospective threats, such as flooding, caused by cutting down trees. Secondly, governments can escalate the usage of renewable energy and motivate persons to substitute them with fuel.
To briefly recapitulate, I go for the ideas in the latter paragraph. By the way, nonetheless, we can boil down the essay to two items: (1) the increase of the fuel cost can bring out less air and sound pollution and damage to our nature, (2) governments can caution people of the potential perils and facilitate the usage of green fuel.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-25 | kashyap sahil | 56 | view |
| 2023-09-07 | huy ha | 78 | view |
| 2023-08-28 | Phuong1810 | 78 | view |
| 2023-08-28 | Phuong1810 | 78 | view |
| 2023-07-28 | Amanda158 | 61 | view |
- The chart below gives information about the growth of the urban population in certain parts of the world including the prediction of the future 73
- Some people feel that boarding schools (where students or pupils live at the school during the term) are an excellent option for children, while other people disagree for a number of reasons. Consider both sides of this debate and reach a conclusion. 89
- In modern times, young adult are spending less time with their families and more time with their friends. Why has this change occurred? Do you think parents should force their children to spend more time at home? 84
- In the past shopping was a routine domestic task Many people nowadays regard it as a hobby To what extent do you think this is a positive trend 84
- The table below shows the expenditures of four car companies on advertising in the UK in 2002 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 217, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e the possible dangers, jeopardizing us, provided we do not care about our periph...
^^
Line 5, column 307, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...a and annihilate it. To the best of the authors knowledge, China could prevent its natu...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, briefly, but, first, firstly, moreover, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, while, for example, such as, by the way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 24.0651302605 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 62.0 41.998997996 148% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1910.0 1615.20841683 118% => OK
No of words: 377.0 315.596192385 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06631299735 5.12529762239 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4064143971 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97321332351 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 176.041082164 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.57824933687 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 593.1 506.74238477 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 7.0 2.52805611222 277% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.4047033637 49.4020404114 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.375 106.682146367 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5625 20.7667163134 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.9375 7.06120827912 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.26189859775 0.244688304435 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0669629393073 0.084324248473 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0544899729167 0.0667982634062 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1340561587 0.151304729494 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0676613842734 0.056905535591 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.0946893788 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 50.2224549098 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.4159519038 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.47 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 78.4519038076 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.