Nowadays even more people are throwing things away that got broken and in the past people would try to repair these things instead of throwing away. Why do you think this is happening? What are possible solutions to this problem?
Disposing of items with defects has become the de facto standard as opposed to fixing whatever ailment the product might have. Throwing away and buying new is the postmodern mantra and seems to be a manifestation of a philosophy steeped in hyper capitalism. It was not always like this – items of various functionalities, be it shoes, televisions or furniture, would get repaired and usually would last a rather long product life.
As foreshadowed earlier, I believe that our current form of capitalism is to blame to a large extent for our throw-away culture. There is an overabundance of supplies that exhibit diminished product quality and are not built to last. Even worse, products are planned in such a way that they break after a certain time and are built accordingly.
This is in contrast to just a few decades ago, where consumables would seem to last for a life time. Not surprisingly, the age of unprecedented global trade had not yet entered the world stage and correspondingly, the relative scarcity of products would ensure that manufacturers put emphasis on quality, whereas trade nowadays is focused on quantity and, even more importantly, on novelty.
Nonetheless, there seems to be an ever-growing counter movement emerging that tries to raise awareness of the problems associated with our throw-away culture. For example, it has become increasingly unpopular to use plastic bags and also plastic product packaging as a result of the efforts by this counter movement. Plastic bags even got banned in the majority of Australia and other countries. This kind of approach is at the heart of the solution to the throw-away culture and educating people of the aftermath of increasing garbage piles will change the behaviour of consumers, which in turn forces manufacturers to also change their approach to doing business.
In conclusion, I believe that raising awareness of the dangers associated with environmental pollution due to increasing waste, lies at the centre of tackling the throw-away culture we live in. This will lead to changes in behaviour of both, consumers and businesses, resulting in more durable products and a more sustainable economy.
- The diagram below shows how geothermal energy is used to produce electricity. 11
- The pie charts and table give information about the total value and sources of fish imported to the U.S between 1988 and 2000. 78
- The chart below shows the number of men and women in further education in Britain in three periods and whether they were studying full-time or part-time. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where r 84
- Adults do less exercise nowadays. Some think that people can be encouraged to live healthy lives through sporting events such as the Olympics or the World Cup. Others think that there are better ways to encourage adults for exercise. Discuss both views an 84
- The charts below show degree granted in different fields at the National University in the years 1990 2000 and 2010 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 385, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[10]
Message: The adverb 'usually' is usually put between 'would' and 'last'.
Suggestion: would usually last
...ns or furniture, would get repaired and usually would last a rather long product life. As fo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 91, Rule ID: LIFE_TIME[1]
Message: Did you mean 'lifetime'?
Suggestion: lifetime
...re consumables would seem to last for a life time. Not surprisingly, the age of unprecede...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, if, nonetheless, so, whereas, as for, for example, in conclusion, in contrast, kind of, as a result, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 41.998997996 126% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1845.0 1615.20841683 114% => OK
No of words: 352.0 315.596192385 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24147727273 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33147354134 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05742537903 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.579545454545 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 582.3 506.74238477 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => 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: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 59.0133156887 49.4020404114 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.785714286 106.682146367 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1428571429 20.7667163134 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.57142857143 7.06120827912 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.67935871743 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.234708946794 0.244688304435 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0693983922989 0.084324248473 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0440460392991 0.0667982634062 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115564380848 0.151304729494 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0444201197776 0.056905535591 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 13.0946893788 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 50.2224549098 75% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 12.4159519038 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.59 8.58950901804 112% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 78.4519038076 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.