Aug. 12, 2020
climate change #1
---
In the previous decade, in wealthier countries, people are starting to realize the increasing climate change issues. As we saw, the foresight governments are gradually educating the younger generation in the environmental aspect and how dangerous it is. In some, that is the cost of human progress. A shortly irrational investment accompanies with a blockbuster thriving. It is a fair deal for some. But an uncontrolled use of natural resources, over- urbanizing, industry, and unforested are bringing the irreversible influence to the earth. Such as, the ozone layer is thinning, temperatures are rising, glaciers are melting, and our precious natural resources are disappearing. The time change, the fate worse. On my side, there has no way to mitigate the climate issues that is the price of the population growing, self-ambitions, and social development that is unstoppable.
---
The escalating climate change as though a visible signal of an abysmal apocalypse, blaming mankind’s atrocity that full their own pocket by pillage nature. Instead, this depletion is the cost of their growth. Rich countries prevail by this game, that they may draw from our natural resources far more than they need to. When the balance chain, which between the domestic environment and mankind, is crank, the rich countries will turn their gun force to weaker countries and then keeping work. Meanwhile, for poor countries, some of this consumption is part of their societal growth. Some of them maybe desire the rich countries, as a hero, pull them out of the financial marsh and lead a short term of soaring economy. In my position, that is no everyone has a brave discuss the climate change issues on the table, especially the poor.
---
For the social development, education building up, and green, most will be happy to pay the price. In some’ views, the consumption is unavoidable. Because they think economic recovery is matter. Compared with the people who live in rich countries, the poor are more eagerly money to save them out of poverty. If the poor have an opportunity to be wealthier, they will grab it tightly even if destroy the environment for return. That is the best example of a lesson; facing the fortune, the voracious appetite of humans will be aggerating, particular without asking a return. In other words, I never trust human can depress their desire successfully. The war of allative climate change is doom to fail, in my opinion.
climate change #1
---
In the previous decade, people in wealthier countries, people are starting began to realizse the increasing threat of climate change issues.
The corrections I've made make this sentence flow a bit nicer. I would use the word "began to realise" as you are talking about the previous decade you're speaking in past tense.
As we sawFrom what we have seen, the foresight of governments arelead to them gradually educating the younger generation in thes on environmental aspectchanges and how dangerous it is.
In somehort, that is the cost of human progress.
A shortly irrational investment accompaniesd with a blockbuster thriving.
It is a fair deal for some.
But aAn uncontrolled use of natural resources, over- urbanizing,sation, certain industryies, and undeforestedation are bringing the irreversible influconseqences to the earth.
Generally speaking try to avoid starting sentences with words such as "but" and "and"
Such asFor example, the ozone layer is thinning, temperatures are rising, glaciers are melting, and our precious natural resources are disappearing.
TheAs time change, the fate worsegoes on, the worse our fate becomes.
On my sideone hand, there hais no way to mitigate the climate issuchanges that isare the priconsequence of the growing population growing, self-ambition, selfish derires, and social development that is unstoppable.
The escalatingon of climate change as thoughcould be seen as a visible signal of an abysmal apocalypse, blamingcaused by mankind’s atrocityies that fuill their own pocket by pillage natures, fuelled by greed.
Instead, this depletion is the cost of their growth.
Rich countries prevail bysucceed in this game, that they maey draw from our natural resources far more than they may need to.
When theyou balance the chain, which between the domestic environment and mankind, is crank, the rich countries will turn their gun forces to weaker countries and, then keepingcontinue to work.
Meanwhile, for poorer countries, some of this consumption is part of their societal growth.
Some of them maybe desadmire the rich countries, as a hero,s, someone who can pull them out of the financial marsh and lead a short term of soaring economy.
"Heros" instead of "hero" as by saying "countries" it implies you're talking about multiple.
In my position, that is noopinion, not everyone has ais brave enough to discuss the threat of climate change issues on the table, especially the poor.
For the social development, education building up, and greimproving education and the environment, most will be happy to pay the price.
In some’ views,Some people have the opinion the consumption is unavoidable.
BecauseAs they think economic recovery is matterore important.
Compared with the people who livose in rich countries, the poor are more eagerly desiring money to saveget them out of poverty.
If the poor have an opportunity to be wealthier, they will grab it tightly even if destroyand not let go even if it negatively impacts the environment for return.
That is the best example of a lesson; facing the fortune, the voraferocious appetite of humans will be aggccelerating, particularly without asking a return.
It was unclear what was trying to be said in this sentence. I have tried to edit in a way that would make more sense in English and keep in tune with what I believe you were trying to say.
In other words, I neverdo not trust that humans can desuppress their desire successfully.
The war of allativeIn my opinion, the war against climate change is doomed to fail, in my opinion.
Feedback
Well done. It's impressive that you are able to write such a large piece of writing on a topic. I would suggest focusing a bit more on vocabularly, and sentence structure. At some points in your piece of writing it was unclear what you were trying to say.
Overall you done a very good job! Keep it up.
Aug. 14, 2020
Thank you feedback is very helpful. And I have a few questions. Could you help me?
1. Rich countries succeed in this game, they draw from our natural resources far more than they may need to.
I want to say that rich countries get the success in the game of pillage first. They know other poor countries. If I use to prevail in here, will be impressed. Or do you have any idea to claim this idea?
2. " Because they think economic recovery is matter." Could you explain to me why "matter" is incorrect? I think "matter" more short and clear.
3. " That is the best example of a lesson; facing the fortune, the voracious appetite of humans will be aggerating, particular without asking a return."
What I want to say is very similar to this quote. When people face a deal with huge benefits and no cost, they will crazy.
"Ben avoids turmoil and strife, and its nature is timid. This is true, but not the whole truth. Capital is afraid of no profit or too little profit, just as nature is afraid of vacuum. Once there is a proper profit, capital becomes bold. If there is 10% profit, it is guaranteed to be used everywhere; if there is 20% profit, it will become active; if there is 50% profit, it will take risks; for 100% profit, it will dare to trample all human laws; yes With 300% profit, it would dare to commit any crime, even risking its head. If turmoil and strife can bring profit, it will encourage turmoil and strife. Smuggling and the slave trade are proof."
5. Do you have any suggestions for my whole short essay? Like the whole structure or sentences relate to the next one? Jump a lot?
thank you
Aug. 14, 2020
No problem!
1. If you're wanting to specify pillage, a good way to word it would be "Rich countries succeed in pillaging, they draw from our natural resources more than they may need to"
2. In the sentence "because they think ecomonic recovery is matter" it doesn't make sense in English. In this context "matter" is a verb, and "important" is an adjective. Although these two words have very similiar meanings, in this sentence structed the adjective is needed to tie the sentence together and have it make sense. (I hope this explanation helps)
3. Ah I see, I understand a bit more now. The other way in which that sentence in the essay you wrote could be worded would be "This is an example that can be used as a good lesson; how some can face the fortune, the ferocious appetites of humans and aggregation, without asking for anything in return" (I have ammended this on your correction so it is easier for you to look back on if need be.
4. I think you done very well overall in your essays, they flowed nicely and for the most part were easy to read. I think with the level you are at a thesaurus could be a useful thing for you to have. The only thing I've really noticed in the essays is that you are using some words to describe things and with these words the meanings of them makes sense but the word itself isn't. A thesarus will show you all the different variations on how you can say somthing. You done a great job though, you should be proud :)
In the previous decade, in wealthier countries, people are starting to realizhave begun to notice the increasing threat of climate change issues.
Realising is usually for facts, not objects. You can "realise that..." but you cannot realise an issue. As a transitive verb, it roughly means "to bring to fruition" or "to make something come true/real", so for example you can realise your dream of starting a business.
As we sawhave seen, the fmoresigh prudent governments are gradually educating the younger generation in the environmental aspect and how dangerous it is.
Foresight is 100% a noun. You've also mixed tenses here: "As we saw", used here to mean "as we saw in the previous decade" should be followed by past tense statements. If you say "As we saw,", referring to something _you previously said_ about something else that is still true, then the present tense works. You might say this when giving a lecture or presentation.
In somehort, that is the cost of human progress.
If we just correct the spelling, it would be "In sum", which is short for 'In summary'. But it is also very weird to see it in the third sentence of anything. It's for the last sentence, after you have said a lot of things. There are phrases that also mean "in summary", but aren't only for AFTER you describe something. "In short", "In brief", "To put it bluntly" all permit following the short version with further information.
It is a fair deal for some.
But an uncontrolled use of natural resources, over- urbanizing, industry, and undeforestedation are bringing the irreversible influencchange to the eEarth.
You're referring to all use, not just one specific use of natural resources.
Such asFor example, the ozone layer is thinning, temperatures are rising, glaciers are melting, and our precious natural resources are disappearing.
"such as" can only come after a noun is used, and cannot start a sentence. For example, "I have many problems, such as A, B, and C." Think of it as being a condensed, tacked-on version of "Such problems as A, B, and C".
TheAs time change, thegoes on, our fate worsens.
OIn my sideopinion, there hais no way to mitigate the climate issues that isare the price of thunstoppable population growingth, self-ambitionsinterest, and social development that is unstoppable.
Aug. 14, 2020
1. "But an uncontrolled use of natural resources, over- urbanizing, industry, and deforestation are bringing the irreversible change to the Earth. "
For this sentence: why using " influence " is not good. I had checked influence meaning taking a negativity effect. I think using " influence" in this word will be more impressive.
2. "From what have seen" or " as we had seen" which is better? more impressive?
3. Do you have any suggestions for my whole short essay? Like the whole structure or sentences relate to the next one? Jump a lot?
thank your corrections and feedback :D
Aug. 14, 2020
You can “bring change to” an industry or area, like a reforming politician. You can “influence” someone by talking to them and convincing them to do things. It is very indirect and usually involves talking or writing. It can also be applied to large human processes like elections. You can “bring a [Region/Genre] influence” eg Southern French cooking to a kitchen, because the influence you’re bringing was originally other people talking to you and making you cook a certain way. The influence is now a bunch of suggestions for your new coworkers.
I would almost never use it to describe a scientific effect. Especially not when you’re saying “irreversible”. Influence is never irreversible.
I would caution against trying too hard to sound impressive. Using the wrong expression dilutes your message, so if you stick to the words you know you have a better chance of landing a good point. It’s also just a bit too dense for me to really critique the structure. You’re cartwheeling off in many directions, and controlling excessive language will help you be clear about where your argument is going. For example, when you introduce a concept, if you describe it again in different words in the next sentence, then the reader thinks you’re talking about something else. Which means you’re just saying a bunch of unrelated things, even if you’re not — make the reader do less work to connect your ideas! Grammar textbooks will tell you that words like “However” and “In addition” are connectors, but the real connectors are using the same words to refer to previous ideas. Use the same basic noun in consecutive sentences to make a point ABOUT the thing you just described. You keep saying “this consumption” without having established what consumption you’re talking about. I’m lost when you do that! I think you know it, too, based on your question there. It’s really hard. Try looking through all of the “it”, “the”, “this” etc definite articles and seeing if your reader can tell exactly what you’re referring to.
As for the argument, you’re trying to say that economies will fight tooth and nail to the bitter end and the climate is bound to suffer, but you didn’t really address any of the huge number of economic measures (trading schemes etc) designed to mitigate those instincts and allow the best economic choice to align with the best climate choice. It is in many ways a cold numbers game. Flowery language about rich and poor doesn’t mean anything if you tip the scales to change this behaviour and remove the incentives. It would have been good to see you argue, in less impressive language, why even those economic measures won’t work fast enough and how the raw self-interest of mankind will always be too much. Less language more examples! Not sure if that’s the advice people want on LangCorrect, but hey, you’re writing an essay, you’re trying to convince, right?
Aug. 19, 2020
Sorry about responding late. I get what you said. you are right. I should not change nouns frequently. What I write doesn't help to coloured the whole essay and the readers may be confused. So you recommend me to add more facts in the essay? such like, in this essay, listing what people reactions to mitigate climate change. Just add more examples as more as possible, right? Do you mean facts or numbers are more powerful than words, right?
I will follow your suggestion to rewrite and prove more facts. So could you help me to take a look after I done? thank you
Aug. 19, 2020
I'll give you an example of how you can change your writing, other than doing more research. I wrote a paragraph, and then took out all of the imagery and fancy turns of phrase. The first paragraph (#1) is how I would normally write, and the complexity is part of what makes it sound a bit academic and formal. The approach also allows roughly one point per sentence, such that the full stop is a marker for 'done with that thought, now consider what impact that has'. I learned to write this way when my professors would write "so what?" after a full stop when the point was spread over two sentences. You don't have to do that.
The second, while it is not as academic and is not as nuanced, is easier to understand. You can see by comparison that the grammar, the vocabulary, and the use of advanced expressions is reduced. Also, if I were wrong about something, it would be more obvious to me and to the reader. If you cannot write like #1, that is fine! I'm saying, aim for #2. But I'm also saying that a lot of people, when they don't have a strong argument to make, think that writing like #1 will make their point stronger. It will not. Writing like #2 will force you to think more about whether you're right.
---
#1. The role of human greed in climate change is in slipping through every crack that forms when you try to change behaviour. Emissions trading schemes covering complex industries are difficult to get right. The REDD+ forestry carbon credit program is a great example. Credits are awarded for not pursuing forestry projects, but companies "leak" their business to nearby regions, that is, they do it anyway. A non-existent reduction in forestry is rewarded, and because of that, the resulting credits are cheap enough for heavy carbon industries like transport to continue on unchanged by simply buying carbon neutrality. The mere existence of the REDD+ scheme undermines any compatible trading schemes, and the ever-prolonged deviation from business as usual is why nations find themselves unable to hit targets. The problem of climate change is like this at every turn. Greed is why it is so huge.
---
An asterisk is placed after each sentence I changed.*
#2. Human greed makes big behaviour changes difficult, because people will find every opportunity not to do what you want them to.* Emissions trading schemes are always difficult to get right.* The REDD+ forestry carbon credit program is a great example. Credits are awarded for not pursuing forestry projects, but companies just do that forestry somewhere else.* Because of that, the resulting credits are too cheap.* Industries like transport can just buy those credits and continue on unchanged.* The REDD+ scheme undermines other trading schemes, and real change is delayed, so nations find themselves unable to hit targets.* The problem of climate change is like this at every turn. Greed is why it is so huge.
Aug. 19, 2020
I would add that the best thing about your writing is the punchy sentences, so that's not a huge problem for you. You're just using advanced vocab and phrases that you're just not quite using right (and actually, moreover, they are causing you to trip up on the basic things). Take them out, and work on the nuts and bolts of writing without fluff. When you do that, you will know whether or not you are making good points and using enough facts. "Take out the fluff" is pretty much what my teachers were telling me in high school, when just like you I discovered all these advanced expressions and tried them out. You can add a bit of fluff back when you have mastered everything else. Good luck!
Aug. 19, 2020
And yes I'll watch out for new posts!
In the previousThroughout the past decade, in wealthier countries, people are starting to realize the increasing seriousness of climate change issues.
If you say "throughout the previous decade," you are talking about a decade that is already over. If you say "throughout the past decade," you're talking about a decade that includes right now. Because you use the present tense ("are starting," instead of "started"), I switched it to "the past decade."
As we saw, the foresight governments are graduallystarting to educating the younger generation ins about the environmental aspect and howthe dangerous it is of climate change.
I switched it to "younger generations" in the plural because I think you're talking about a whole group of younger people, as opposed to people born in just a few very specific years.
In some, that ways, climate change is the cost of human progress.
A shortly iIrrational investment accompanies with a blockbuster thrivings lead to economic growth.
But anthe uncontrolled use of natural resources, over- urbanizingation, iandustry, and unforested are bringing the deforestation are having an irreversible influence tompact on the earth.
I know what you mean by "industry," but that's not quite the right word to use. I guess you could say "factory pollution?"
Such as,As a result the ozone layer is thinning, temperatures are rising, glaciers are melting, and our precious natural resources are disappearing.
TheAs time change, the fatepasses, our fate looks worse.
On my sidFrom my perspective, there hais no way to mitigate these climate issues that is. They are the price of thea growing population growing, self-and ambitionus, andunstoppable social development that is unstoppable.,
The escalating climate change as thoughis a visible signal of an abysmalthe apocalypse, blaming mankind’s atrocity that full their own pocket by pillagedemonstrating the atrocity of mankind ruining nature.
The word "apocalypse" is always "the apocalypse" - never "an apocalypse" or "apocalypses" in the plural.
Instead, this depletion is the cost of their growth.
I deleted this because I think you already got this point across, so this sentence seemed a bit redundant.
Rich countries prevail by this game, that they may drawtake from our natural resources far more than they need to.
Meanwhile, for poor countries, some of this consumption is part of their societalrequired for economic growth.
Some of them maybe desirehope that the rich countries, as a hero, pull them out of the financial marsh and lead a short term of soaringboost their economyies.
In my position, that isFrom what I can tell, not everyone has acan bravely discuss the issue of climate change issues on the table, especially the poor.
For the social development, education building up, and green, most will be happy to pay the priceMost will be happy to pay the price for social development and improved education.
BSome people believe this consumption is unavoidable, because they thinkprioritize economic recovery is matter.
Compared with the people who live in rich countries, the poor are more eagerly for money to save them out offrom poverty.
If the poor have an opportunity to be wealthier, they will grab it tightly even ifseize it, even if they end up destroying the environment for return.
In other words, I never trust human can desuppress their desire successfully.
The war of alleviativeng climate change is doom to fail, in my opinion.
Feedback
I would recommend using simpler words. I think that you could use shorter words to convey the same ideas more clearly and efficiently.
|
climate change #1 |
|
In the previous decade, in wealthier countries, people are starting to realize the increasing climate change issues. In the previous decade, in wealthier countries, people Realising is usually for facts, not objects. You can "realise that..." but you cannot realise an issue. As a transitive verb, it roughly means "to bring to fruition" or "to make something come true/real", so for example you can realise your dream of starting a business.
In the previous decade, people in wealthier countries The corrections I've made make this sentence flow a bit nicer. I would use the word "began to realise" as you are talking about the previous decade you're speaking in past tense.
If you say "throughout the previous decade," you are talking about a decade that is already over. If you say "throughout the past decade," you're talking about a decade that includes right now. Because you use the present tense ("are starting," instead of "started"), I switched it to "the past decade."
|
|
As we saw, the foresight governments are gradually educating the younger generation in the environmental aspect and how dangerous it is. As we Foresight is 100% a noun. You've also mixed tenses here: "As we saw", used here to mean "as we saw in the previous decade" should be followed by past tense statements. If you say "As we saw,", referring to something _you previously said_ about something else that is still true, then the present tense works. You might say this when giving a lecture or presentation.
As we saw, I switched it to "younger generations" in the plural because I think you're talking about a whole group of younger people, as opposed to people born in just a few very specific years.
|
|
In some, that is the cost of human progress. In s If we just correct the spelling, it would be "In sum", which is short for 'In summary'. But it is also very weird to see it in the third sentence of anything. It's for the last sentence, after you have said a lot of things. There are phrases that also mean "in summary", but aren't only for AFTER you describe something. "In short", "In brief", "To put it bluntly" all permit following the short version with further information.
In s In some |
|
A shortly irrational investment accompanies with a blockbuster thriving. A short
|
|
It is a fair deal for some. |
|
But an uncontrolled use of natural resources, over- urbanizing, industry, and unforested are bringing the irreversible influence to the earth. But You're referring to all use, not just one specific use of natural resources.
Generally speaking try to avoid starting sentences with words such as "but" and "and"
But I know what you mean by "industry," but that's not quite the right word to use. I guess you could say "factory pollution?"
|
|
Such as, the ozone layer is thinning, temperatures are rising, glaciers are melting, and our precious natural resources are disappearing.
"such as" can only come after a noun is used, and cannot start a sentence. For example, "I have many problems, such as A, B, and C." Think of it as being a condensed, tacked-on version of "Such problems as A, B, and C".
|
|
The time change, the fate worse.
|
|
On my side, there has no way to mitigate the climate issues that is the price of the population growing, self-ambitions, and social development that is unstoppable.
On
|
|
The escalating climate change as though a visible signal of an abysmal apocalypse, blaming mankind’s atrocity that full their own pocket by pillage nature. The escalati The escalating climate change The word "apocalypse" is always "the apocalypse" - never "an apocalypse" or "apocalypses" in the plural.
|
|
Instead, this depletion is the cost of their growth.
I deleted this because I think you already got this point across, so this sentence seemed a bit redundant.
|
|
Rich countries prevail by this game, that they may draw from our natural resources far more than they need to. Rich countries Rich countries |
|
When the balance chain, which between the domestic environment and mankind, is crank, the rich countries will turn their gun force to weaker countries and then keeping work. When |
|
Meanwhile, for poor countries, some of this consumption is part of their societal growth. Meanwhile, for poorer countries, some of this consumption is part of their societal growth. Meanwhile, for poor countries, some of this consumption is |
|
Some of them maybe desire the rich countries, as a hero, pull them out of the financial marsh and lead a short term of soaring economy. Some of them maybe "Heros" instead of "hero" as by saying "countries" it implies you're talking about multiple.
Some of them maybe |
|
In my position, that is no everyone has a brave discuss the climate change issues on the table, especially the poor. In my
|
|
--- |
|
--- |
|
--- |
|
For the social development, education building up, and green, most will be happy to pay the price. For
|
|
In some’ views, the consumption is unavoidable.
|
|
Because they think economic recovery is matter.
|
|
Compared with the people who live in rich countries, the poor are more eagerly money to save them out of poverty. Compared with th Compared with the people who live in rich countries, the poor are more eager |
|
If the poor have an opportunity to be wealthier, they will grab it tightly even if destroy the environment for return. If the poor have an opportunity to be wealthier, they will grab it If the poor have an opportunity to be wealthier, they will |
|
That is the best example of a lesson; facing the fortune, the voracious appetite of humans will be aggerating, particular without asking a return. That is the best example of a lesson; facing the fortune, the It was unclear what was trying to be said in this sentence. I have tried to edit in a way that would make more sense in English and keep in tune with what I believe you were trying to say.
|
|
In other words, I never trust human can depress their desire successfully. In other words, I In other words, I never trust human can |
|
The war of allative climate change is doom to fail, in my opinion.
The war of alleviati |
You need LangCorrect Premium to access this feature.
Go Premium