In many countries, plastic shopping bags are the main source of rubbish. They cause water and land pollution, and so they should be banned. To what extend do you agree with this statement?
The authorities’ imposing a prohibition of utilizing grocery bags is a highly controversial topic in a large number of nations. While the opinion that using plastic bags has such detrimental effects on the ecosystem that they should be banned have gained widespread acceptance, I firmly hold the view that their role in everyday life is indispensable and therefore nylon bags can not be get rid of.
On one hand, there are some compelling reasons behind the protest against the daily use of domestic bags, chief of which is that they effect devastatingly on the aquatic ecosystem. As a matter of fact, every day, there is a huge amount of plastic shopping bags dumped improperly into the oceans, which is eaten by an abundance of marine species such as whales, fish or mammals. Therefore, this has led to a large population of endangered animals dying off at a breakneck speed. Another part of the ecosystem which is vulnerable to the uncontrolled domestic bags disposal is the inland environment. In fact, the nylon bags, once are thrown to the trash can, are collected and buried. From a scientifically perspective, this type of container takes approximately a hundred of years to completely discompose, during which the plastic bags emit toxic substance themselves. Hence, those noxious chemicals can destructively contaminate land and groundwater sources.
On the other hand, I am of the opinion that the policy-makers should not impose a blanket ban on plastic bags simply because they are more affordable than other alternatives. Nowadays, cotton bags are gaining more and more popularity among environmentalists for being environmentally-friendly; nevertheless, in the economic terms, they are much more expensive than the traditional shopping bags. Therefore, if the state bar consumers from using nylon bags, they may have to spend higher amount of cash on cotton bags, which can result in strong public opposition. Hence, instead of prohibiting individuals of shopping with domestic bags, governments should encourage their citizens to reuse plastic bags, this would lead to the significant reduction in disposed grocery bags, and the degree of pollution is likely to decrease as a result.
To sum up, despite several environmental threats of the overuse of plastic shopping bags, this kind of container plays an utmost important role in people’s every day consumption; therefore, any suggestion about banning shoppers from using these domestic items is prove ineffective.
- A rise in the standard of living in a country often only seems to benefit cities rather than rural areas What problems can this cause How might these problem be reduced 78
- Many people nowadays spend a large part of their free time using a smartphone What do you think are the reasons for this Do you think this is a positive or negative development 78
- The chart shows the percentage of women and men in one Asian country who passed when they took their driving test between 1980 and 2010 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 82
- Some people believe that studying at university or college is the best route to a successful career while others believe that it is better to go to get a job straight after school Discuss both views and give your opinion 78
- In some countries the number of people choosing to live by themselves is increasing rapidly in recent years Why is this the case Is this a positive or negative development 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 102, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...bags is a highly controversial topic in a large number of nations. While the opinion that using p...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 688, Rule ID: A_RB_NN[1]
Message: You used an adverb ('scientifically') instead an adjective, or a noun ('perspective') instead of another adjective.
...ash can, are collected and buried. From a scientifically perspective, this type of container takes approxima...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 264, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'proved', 'proven'.
Suggestion: proved; proven
...pers from using these domestic items is prove ineffective.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
hence, if, may, nevertheless, so, therefore, while, in fact, kind of, such as, as a matter of fact, as a result, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 41.998997996 136% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2100.0 1615.20841683 130% => OK
No of words: 392.0 315.596192385 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35714285714 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44960558625 4.20363070211 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19260586276 2.80592935109 114% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 176.041082164 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.576530612245 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 666.0 506.74238477 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 20.2975951904 138% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 65.2749287746 49.4020404114 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.0 106.682146367 141% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0 20.7667163134 135% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0714285714 7.06120827912 143% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.206146657568 0.244688304435 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0655513275417 0.084324248473 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0458193282829 0.0667982634062 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12481151162 0.151304729494 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0412752967628 0.056905535591 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 13.0946893788 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.6 50.2224549098 69% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.5 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 78.4519038076 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.78957915832 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.1190380762 130% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.