People are having more and more sugar-based drinks. What are the reasons? What can be done to make people drink less?
Recent decades have witnessed the proliferation of sugar beverages consumption. This essay will discuss the main rationale reason associated with this issue and propose workable remedy.
Firstly, there are number of rationales which trigger the prevalence of the use of sugar-based drinks. The mainly cause is the mounting volume of professional tasks. Indeed, in order to diminishing employment costs, employees are required concurrently numerous positions and given inundate tasks, therefore they would have to spend a greater amount of time and tireless effort to execute those impenetrable workload tasks, which can facilitate universal consumption of sugar beverages to increase their mental alertness and maintain high level of concentration. As a result, ambitious employees can enhance competently capable and skill-sharpening workplace, which can be an advantageous position in comparison to their opponents.
Since the phenomenon can culminate in severe and wide-ranging problems to individuals, the government and individuals should take action instantaneously to radically address them. The efficacious remedy might be imposing heavier statutory taxes on sugary beverages. Indubitably, the portable approach can directly and inevitably increase the consumer price of sugar-based products, which can lead to minimize the significant use of such drinks, therefore, health-conscious consumers can probably have their eyes on nature-based products and sugar-free choices. Consequently, these consumers can secure and maintain a healthy diet and physical conditions by shunning high sugar content.
In conclusion, while the increasing number of sugar-based drinks can have it roots in the excessive volume of professional tasks, putting higher taxes on the price of sugar-based products can be a feasible approach.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d products can be a feasible approach.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, firstly, if, so, therefore, while, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 7.85571142285 178% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 24.0651302605 42% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 41.998997996 76% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1570.0 1615.20841683 97% => OK
No of words: 259.0 315.596192385 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.06177606178 5.12529762239 118% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01166760082 4.20363070211 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.28084472352 2.80592935109 117% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 176.041082164 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.640926640927 0.561755894193 114% => OK
syllable_count: 490.5 506.74238477 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 16.0721442886 68% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 98.1170661898 49.4020404114 199% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.727272727 106.682146367 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5454545455 20.7667163134 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.45454545455 7.06120827912 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.197858433807 0.244688304435 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.070342371713 0.084324248473 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0610659058649 0.0667982634062 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129220353351 0.151304729494 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0631091883487 0.056905535591 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.9 13.0946893788 144% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 22.75 50.2224549098 45% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.3001002004 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 18.16 12.4159519038 146% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.12 8.58950901804 129% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 78.4519038076 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.78957915832 128% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.