The environment we live in is in danger. What are the underlying causes? Who is responsible for combatting this?
A.I. Score
Each colour is one skill. Tap a colour to hide it. Tap it again to show it.
The environment we live in is in danger, and this environmental danger is neither accidental nor unavoidable. The underlying causes lie in pollution, deforestation and weak governance, while responsibility for combating the damage must be shared. Consequently, combating environmental danger requires aligned policy from governments, industries and responsible individuals rather than one actor alone.
The causes of this danger begin with overconsumption and production that put short-term profit above the environment. For example, pollution, deforestation and urban expansion are causes that degrade the environment, and rising ocean levels now threaten agricultural output. Furthermore, unchecked emissions are a danger to health. Yet these causes continue because environmental policy is delayed or poorly enforced, which undermines sustainability.
Responsibility for combating these environmental causes rests first with governments, which are responsible for laws, policy and enforcement. However, without firm government rules the environment stays in danger because markets reward pollution over sustainability. Therefore, corporations are also responsible and must redesign supply chains, while responsible consumers help by combating waste and cutting pollution through better daily choices.
In conclusion, environmental danger stems from pollution, deforestation and weak oversight, so the causes are structural rather than accidental. No single group can reverse this danger alone, but governments, businesses and citizens are each responsible for combating it. Ultimately, only when responsible policy, innovation and sustainability align will the environment move out of danger.
- Fully addresses the prompt in depth, showing full command of the argument by reformulating the issue in the writer's own words and expanding important points with specificity.
- The argument is supported convincingly with subsidiary points and relevant examples throughout the response.
- Has an effective logical structure, flows smoothly, and can be followed with ease.
- The argument is clear and cohesive and developed systematically at length; a well-developed introduction and conclusion are present, and ideas are organised cohesively into clear, logically sequenced paragraphs.
- Uses a variety of connective devices effectively and consistently to convey relationships between ideas.
- A variety of expressions and vocabulary are used appropriately to formulate ideas with ease and precision throughout the response.
- No signs of limitations restricting what can be communicated.
- Errors in language use, if present, are rare and minor, and meaning is completely clear.
- Shows consistent grammatical control of complex language. Errors are rare and difficult to spot.
- Good command of a broad lexical repertoire, idiomatic expressions and collocations.
- Correct spelling.
- Length is within the required 200 to 300 words.