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.
Many would assert that imposing strict limits on trash from households can solve environmental problems. In some senses, it is undeniable that unchecked consumer waste contributes to environmental challenges. Only by focusing on the merits of trash limits for households, however, does this view overlook the limitations of such policies from the perspectives of promoting illegal practices and the potential effectiveness of regulations on companies.
Admittedly, few would disagree that household waste restrictions can lead to environmental improvement. When it comes to raising consumers' environmental awareness, household policies often have a more immediate impact than broader corporate regulations. Consider recycling initiatives, which not only reduce everyday waste but also promote the use of recycled products. Such policies make the public more cognizant of the waste issue, leading to a potential reduction in total waste. The point here is that policies targeting the general public essentially benefit the environment.
Nevertheless, imposing stringent trash limits on households might inadvertently promote illegal practices. Instead of addressing the core environmental concerns, policies that tax excessive garbage might compel individuals to dispose of their waste illicitly to evade these charges. This could ironically increase waste levels, counteracting the policy's original intent. This indicates that an overemphasis on consumer regulations might need rethinking.
Moreover, focusing solely on consumer restrictions isn't the sole solution. It's crucial to also consider the substantial environmental impact of corporations. Large companies often generate significant waste, including harmful pollutants. Notable environmental disasters, such as wastewater crises in regions like Korea, underscore the detrimental effects of unchecked corporate waste. This suggests that regulating companies in terms of environmental impact is essential for holistic problem-solving.
To sum up, while household waste limitations can yield positive outcomes, potential illegal activities by individuals and the significant environmental footprints of corporations highlight that household-focused policies don't invariably lead to environmental betterment. Only if we overlook these significant factors could we conclude that exclusively targeting households is the ultimate solution to our environmental woes.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-19 | Juhong Park | 10 | view |
| 2023-10-19 | Juhong Park | 66 | view |
| 2023-10-18 | Juhong Park | 83 | view |
| 2023-10-18 | Juhong Park | 66 | view |
| 2023-10-18 | Juhong Park | 66 | view |
- 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 83
- If a goal is worthy then any means taken to attain it are justifiable 70
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 58
- Formal education tends to restrain our minds and spirits rather than set them free 66
- 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 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 531, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...int here is that policies targeting the general public essentially benefit the environment. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 52, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...ocusing solely on consumer restrictions isnt the sole solution. Its crucial to also ...
^^^^
Line 10, column 222, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ghlight that household-focused policies dont invariably lead to environmental better...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, moreover, nevertheless, so, while, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 19.6327345309 20% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 55.5748502994 68% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2108.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 326.0 441.139720559 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.46625766871 5.12650576532 126% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24917287072 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.39277116192 2.78398813304 122% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.588957055215 0.468620217663 126% => OK
syllable_count: 666.0 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.0 1.59920159681 125% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.1894057451 57.8364921388 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.947368421 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1578947368 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.36842105263 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.257296204081 0.218282227539 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0798359342111 0.0743258471296 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0665688078439 0.0701772020484 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150104070156 0.128457276422 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0708195128205 0.0628817314937 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.6 14.3799401198 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 20.38 48.3550499002 42% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 19.95 12.5979740519 158% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.44 8.32208582834 125% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.