There is a belief that supermarkets and manufacturers have a duty to reduce the packaging of products they sell. Others argue that consumers must avoid buying products with a lot of packaging. Discuss both views of this argument by giving specific examples and reasons.
How packing is treated has been a problem that arouses public attention over the past few decades. While it is reckoned by many residents that enterprises should consciously decrease their use in production, others opine that is it themselves who need eliminate such merchandise.
On the one hand, reducing packaging is recognized as a responsibility for brands thanks to its positive financial impact on their budget. Indeed, the less materials used for wrapping their goods, the more likely companies are to contract their overhead cost. For example, a study conducted at Walmart revealed that when their products were covered with carton boxes only instead of incorporating with multiple nylon layers, the supermarket chain could save up to 20% expenditure for packaging, enabling them to maximize their profit. In fact, there has been an argument that using such massive amount of wrapping is inevitable because many types of merchandise are fragile and have to undergo a long delivery. However, a huge amount of other products are aimed at in-store purchase, so similar treatment to them can be seen as a financially unwise policy, which can unnecessarily gain the expense incurred.
On the other hand, there are also many reasons for which consumers should be aware of whether to buy packaging-overloaded products or not. From an environment perspective, avoiding such goods is viewed as a favorable practice. Indeed, the majority of packing is originated from wood, plastic or nylon and mostly discarded after unpacked, so purchasing merchandise with various wrapping layers not only results in an excessive load of non-biodegradable waste, but also increase the coppice woodland harvested, which are all against the objective of green movements. Secondly, from a business perspective, as an obvious rule, only when a product meets customer’s demands will companies maintain it manufacture. Therefore, if buyers express unfavorable attitudes towards over-packaged products, this will prompt a new awareness among producers and encourage them to switch to more eco-friendly approaches.
In conclusion, although declining use of packaging is attributed to supply chain, it is also understandable when consumers shoulder this responsibility.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 151, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun materials is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...ial impact on their budget. Indeed, the less materials used for wrapping their goods...
^^^^
Line 5, column 697, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'manufactures'?
Suggestion: manufactures
...er’s demands will companies maintain it manufacture. Therefore, if buyers express unfavorab...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...itch to more eco-friendly approaches. In conclusion, although declining use of...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, for example, in conclusion, in fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 41.998997996 102% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1916.0 1615.20841683 119% => OK
No of words: 343.0 315.596192385 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.5860058309 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1783935115 2.80592935109 113% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 176.041082164 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.644314868805 0.561755894193 115% => OK
syllable_count: 605.7 506.74238477 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => 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: 26.0 20.2975951904 128% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 66.5829553326 49.4020404114 135% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.384615385 106.682146367 138% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.3846153846 20.7667163134 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.07692307692 7.06120827912 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.168053154508 0.244688304435 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0562564595808 0.084324248473 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0462729518361 0.0667982634062 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0903406889012 0.151304729494 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0447571299698 0.056905535591 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.1 13.0946893788 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 28.17 50.2224549098 56% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.3001002004 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.44 12.4159519038 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.45 8.58950901804 122% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 78.4519038076 153% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.1190380762 123% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.