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.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
To change a negative situation about the environment there are many possible steps witch might be taken. One of them is to put severe limitations on the amount of trash produced by householders. Otherwise, I do not think this is the best way to solve the emerged problems as it presented in the statement above.
First of all, the claim states that strict limits have to be imposed on towns and cities, but there is no information about householders loving in the countryside. Potentially, keepers of houses in cities may have an insignificant effect on the environment while people in villages and small settlements may influence it in a much negative way. For example, the great amount of organic waste may be produced in such places where the level of agriculture is high. Moreover, the level of life in the countryside often does not lag behind the life in cities. Thus, people living in other places may have a greater effect on the environment as well.
Secondly, the main idea of the statement is to put strict limits, and from this the question is rising up. What does it mean strict limits? Who are they strict for? If it underlies that householders have to pay the great amount of money for rules violation, then who sets up this amount. The fact need to be taken into account that not for all people these limits may occur strict and severe. For example, for one person a 500$ fan is a lot of money, but for the other is not. That is why the question of strict rules is relative.
Moreover, the suggestion in the claim mentions only householders, but not other possible sources of producing waste. There are companies, plants, and other industrial enterprises which create the greater amount of trash than lay people. For instance, a plant producing plastics will have more leftovers and trash than a person who threw away waste out of his apartments.
To sum up, I disagree that the method presented in the claim can change the environmental situation to better, because there are some omissions.
- The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice to a client."Homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last year that region experienc 58
- The following appeared in a memo from the new vice president of Sartorian, a company that manufactures men's clothing."Five years ago, at a time when we had difficulty obtaining reliable supplies of high-quality wool fabric, we discontinued production of 54
- The following is a recommendation from the personnel director to the president of Acme Publishing Company."Many other companies have recently stated that having their employees take the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course has greatly improved productivity. One 29
- Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific methods proposed in the reading passage. 3
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?The ability to maintain friendships with a small number of people over a long period of time is more important for happiness than the ability to make many new friends easily.Use specific reasons and ex 60
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 424, Rule ID: CURRENCY[1]
Message: The currency mark is usually put at the beginning of the number: '$500'.
Suggestion: $500
...d severe. For example, for one person a 500$ fan is a lot of money, but for the othe...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, thus, well, while, for example, for instance, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 33.0505617978 54% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 58.6224719101 82% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1673.0 2235.4752809 75% => OK
No of words: 350.0 442.535393258 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.78 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32530772707 4.55969084622 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6775331321 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 215.323595506 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.522857142857 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 518.4 704.065955056 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.3355934939 60.3974514979 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.0526315789 118.986275619 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4210526316 23.4991977007 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.73684210526 5.21951772744 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.211181879265 0.243740707755 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0634510735611 0.0831039109588 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0447268029652 0.0758088955206 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0986302740053 0.150359130593 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0444086379032 0.0667264976115 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.3 14.1392134831 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.8420337079 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.1743820225 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.44 12.1639044944 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.6 8.38706741573 91% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 100.480337079 68% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.