Over the past decades, thanks to the rapid development of environmental issues, an increasing number of people started to be concerned about the most useful method to improve people’s environment. Although some people think that reusing waste and consuming organic food are efficient methods, I think that walking or bicycling to reduce driving is more practical.
First, organic food for reducing pesticides would reduce the production of the food and have a higher price. Since no fertilizer is used during the process of organic food, the production that used to be boosted by the chemical components is reduced. The practice of no pesticide for organic food would also affect the production of plants since plants have a higher chance of being eaten by insects. Overall, the production of plants can be strongly affected without fertilizer and pesticides. Due to the low production, the price of organic food is usually ten or thirty percent higher than regular food. This is usually not affordable for a family over a long period of time.
Secondly, reusing waste is not practical for everyday people who do not have specific knowledge. Since the recycling system, including sorting, cleaning, and transporting to the special place, nowadays is not fully developed, most people need to learn where to recycle each type of waste, such as the battery, plastic, or old electronics. The lack of knowledge makes recycling waste extremely difficult for most people. They may forget to clean the remains in their aluminum bottles, or they may consider button batteries as recyclable. The action of misplacing the waste would be counterproductive to the goal of improving the environment.
Finally, walking or biking for reducing driving is a good vehicle for normal people to reduce the emission of harmful chemicals. First, the only equipment they need is a bicycle to accomplish this goal, and this equipment can last for a super long time if it is not destroyed. With less driving, people can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide their vehicles produce. Especially in urban areas, when people arrive at the nearest subway station near their destination, there is always one to five km left. It is time and energy-consuming if people are walking to the destination, and the only other option is a taxi which is not profitable and time-consuming. With the sharing bike option available, the needed time can be significantly reduced, and they are suitable for the environment.
In conclusion, organic food is expensive and low in production; reusing waste is not practical for common people; walking or biking is beneficial for the environment by reducing carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide produced by vehicles.
- Which one do you think is the most useful to improve our environment 1 Walking or bicycling to reduce driving 2 Only consuming organic food reduce pesticide 3 Reusing wastes 76
- Imagine that you own a company and that you are interviewing people who applied for a job at the company Three candidates applied for the job Which ONE of the three candidates below would you choose to work at your company Why would the candidate be the b 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 664, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...not affordable for a family over a long period of time. Secondly, reusing waste is not pra...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, may, second, secondly, so, i think, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 15.1003584229 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 9.8082437276 112% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 13.8261648746 130% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.0286738351 63% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 43.0788530466 37% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 52.1666666667 100% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.0752688172 198% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2300.0 1977.66487455 116% => OK
No of words: 442.0 407.700716846 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2036199095 4.8611393121 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58517132086 4.48103885553 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88136894773 2.67179642975 108% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 212.727598566 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509049773756 0.524837075471 97% => OK
syllable_count: 723.6 618.680645161 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 9.0 3.08781362007 291% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.86738351254 321% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.940071206 48.9658058833 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.0 100.406767564 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1 20.6045352989 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.45 5.45110844103 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.32046498692 0.236089414692 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.092225514824 0.076458572812 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0955252995422 0.0737576698707 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176231684361 0.150856017488 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0655212088344 0.0645574589148 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 11.7677419355 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 58.1214874552 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.1575268817 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 10.9000537634 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.01818996416 113% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 86.8835125448 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.002688172 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.247311828 137% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.