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 believe that limiting consumer waste can address environmental challenges. Undoubtedly, excessive consumer waste intensifies problems like environmental pollution. However, focusing solely on household restrictions neglects the pitfalls of such policies, especially when considering potential illegal actions and the larger impact of corporate waste.
Certainly, many concur that curbing household waste can benefit the environment. Household regulations often heighten public awareness about environmental concerns. For instance, recycling initiatives not only reduce daily waste but also promote the use of recycled products. Such policies help people grasp the gravity of the waste issue, leading to an overall reduction in waste. The essence here is that rules targeting the public generally aid the environment.
However, imposing strict waste limits might inadvertently promote illegal practices. Instead of achieving the desired reduction in waste, policies that tax excessive waste might drive people to dispose of trash unlawfully to evade these costs. Such actions can ironically increase waste and exacerbate the problem. This suggests we should reconsider over-relying on consumer-targeted rules.
Additionally, focusing only on consumers overlooks a major contributor: companies. Industries often produce significant waste, including harmful pollutants. Many prominent environmental crises, like the wastewater issues in Korea, predominantly stem from corporate actions. This underscores the need for stricter regulations on businesses to truly address environmental problems.
In conclusion, while consumer restrictions have their merits, potential illicit activities and the vast impact of corporate waste highlight that solely regulating household waste might not consistently improve the environment. Only by disregarding these significant concerns could one argue that solely targeting the public is the definitive 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 10
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 70
- Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances times and places 50
- 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
- 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
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, regarding, so, while, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 2.0 19.5258426966 10% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 14.8657303371 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 33.0505617978 39% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 58.6224719101 46% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1721.0 2235.4752809 77% => OK
No of words: 265.0 442.535393258 60% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.49433962264 5.05705443957 128% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03470204552 4.55969084622 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14977947094 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 215.323595506 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.618867924528 0.4932671777 125% => OK
syllable_count: 546.3 704.065955056 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.1 1.59117977528 132% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 23.0359550562 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.616144857 60.3974514979 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.6111111111 118.986275619 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.7222222222 23.4991977007 63% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.38888888889 5.21951772744 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => 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: 0.227641279206 0.243740707755 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0733456206722 0.0831039109588 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0499617980496 0.0758088955206 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128984486865 0.150359130593 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0297124573736 0.0667264976115 45% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 14.1392134831 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 14.97 48.8420337079 31% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.7 12.1743820225 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 19.77 12.1639044944 163% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.59 8.38706741573 126% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 11.2143820225 68% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.