My first attempt- Can you look at this?

[drnishi]

Topic- "Regulators and policymakers should respond to potential environmental threats even before the information is fully known or concrete."

According to the author, government intervention must come even before there is solid proof of any possible threat to the environment. This would mean that regulators and policymakers must take every single threat seriously, whether or not it is substantiated by research. The advantage of this approach would be that it would help prevent some mishaps, however, the cons of this argument heavily outweigh the pros. The argument is based on an idealistic scenario and there are numerous issues that weaken this belief.

The first assumption made by this argument is that all such sources of information are accurate. This is an overtly optimistic assumption and might not always be the case. An environmental study might be clouded by the investigator's bias. Such studies are usually financed by private organizations who might have their own agenda. The methods used by some biased agencies might even be unscientific. Moreover, it is possible for researchers to twist scientific data in various ways in order to present the picture they want, while hiding aspects they don't want seen. The only way for the government to verify the results is to conduct an independent unbiased study.

The idea that any potential threat must be considered to be a serious threat until proven otherwise, is also impractical. The government will not be able to afford to act on every possible issue because of budget constraints. Even if the government were financially capable of taking action, taxpayers might not be happy with the idea of spending money without sufficient scientific proof of any such threat. If the government were to take action each time it came across a threat, it might not have enough resources when a genuine threat is discovered. Hence, the argument is not financially viable.

Another fundamental flaw with the argument is that it assumes that a response from regulators and policy makers would help migitate any environmental threat. Regulations and policies might sometimes be able to prevent a high level of damage, but they will not always be able to resolve a problem completely unless they tackle its root cause. In some cases, especially when the cause of the problem is not domestic, goverment policies will be largely helpless in resolving the issue.

On account of all the above reasons, regulators and policymakers must wait for concrete proof of an environmental threat before they begin formulating laws or policies. Waiting for adequate proof before intervening is not only prudent, but also practical.

[Jayabalan]

Essay looks real good. I would give 4.5 out of 6. Couple of suggestions....

1) Thrive to vary sentence length and use smaller sentences, if possible.
2) There are 2 spelling mistakes. Even though essay is not graded for spelling, you could get lower score. This could be because e-rater cann't understand or thinks you didn't use a correct word.

I am not a professional to rate. This being the first, you did a great job.

[CassieY]

Yes, I agree with Jayabalan. You should use more small sentence to balance the rhythem. It'll be better.