Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
From the small town of Cocoa, Florida, to the busy streets of Beijing, China, driving cars is a global phenomenon. It could be said that reducing the use of cars is beneficiary to the human population. Although, some believe that the negative effects of limiting automobile usage will surely outweigh the positive outcomes. The superior argument, however, is overall, less vehicle use.

Limiting car use would be an improvement to society on a global scale. According to source 1, passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. This shows that the the excessive use of transportation harms the ozone layer. Even at 12 percent, the percentage will gradually increase and later will become an even more significant threat to Earth's atmoshere. According to source 4, transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind powerplants. If the numbers were reduced, it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment. This would cause less pollution and more breathable air in the long run. The world we share will become uninhabitable if we continue in these environmental patterns.

Furthermore, there is more justification for the advantages of limiting car usage. According the source 2, congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France. This was due to the fact that Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air five days before. The amount of time it took to air out smog that rivaled Beijing,China is an impressive factor of being fuel efficient. According the source 3, Bogota Columbia has a program where, for a day, you go around town car-free. It is part of an improvement campaign that began in Bogota in the mid-1990s. This has lead to the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, the most of any Latin American city. Not only does the environment become more habitable, but your physical health is improved as well.

However, some would argue that limiting vehicle use is not the route to go. According to source 2, when the Paris driving ban was enforced, delivery companies complained of lost profit. This is not completeley true since plug-in cars, hybrids, and other earth-friendly cars were unaffected by the Parisian ban. Car companies will still be in business because of the use of green cars instead of foosil fuel-powered automobiles. According to source 4, demographic research has shown that there has been a large drop in the percentage of 16 to 39-year-olds getting a license, while older people are likely to retain their licenses as they age. This may harm the next generation as they become more dependent on alternative methods of traveling. It does not mean, however, that they won't have similar efficiency of speed and reliability with different transportations as they would now. The goverenment will have more money from public transportation to improve upon the community, and greener way. of traveling, like walking or bike riding, will create stronger immune systems and keep the majority of the population in healthy physical shape. The argument of the disadvantages of limiting car usage is somewhat counterproductive, as shown in this paragraph.

Cars, one of the less significant necessities of a well functioning society, will continue to be used. Children, teens, and adults alike will all be affected by the results of driving. We do require a method of convienient transportation for daily occurences, however, there is an extent over how much driving is sufficient to continue our everyday lives. Whatever an individual's decision may be, the amount of car usage will determine the living conditions on Earth for generations to come.

Score: 6