More and more people want to buy clothes, cars, and other products from well-known brands. What are the reasons? Do you think it is a positive or negative trend? (24/02/2019)
Recent decades have witnessed the mounting preference of consumers for products from famous brands. From my perspective, I espouse the notion that this trend is incontrovertibly unfavorable and discuss underlying causative factors for this phenomenon in this essay.
On the one hand, there are several rationales why big brands' goods have gained popularity. The leading culprit behind this phenomenon is to show off owners' wealth, prestige, and personal image. Indubitably, because high-end brands usually advertise their products with well-known celebrities and glamorous representatives, numerous consumers believe that luxurious and extravagant personal possessions can embellish their appearances, proportionally reflecting owners' social status and self-esteem. As a result, they are inclined to purchase these large brand goods regardless of the exorbitantly expensive cost.
On the other hand, the increasing prevalence of famous brands' products is incontrovertibly unfavorable. One of the first significant negatives is to put a heavy burden on individuals' financial resources. Irrefutably, high-end products are frequently prohibitively exorbitant; therefore, low-income consumers who are financially precarious would likely have no alternative but to allocate a considerable proportion of their disposable income to afford these extravagant goods. As a result, this will potentially heighten consumers' severe monetary pressures. Another tangible negative is that this trend would increase the disparity and social inequality between the wealthy and the impoverished. No doubt, a volume of people these days evaluate others through their appearance, clothes, and other ornaments, which is, in many cases, synonymous with the fact that the rich are typically treated in a privileged fashion. Therefore, economically disadvantaged people would likely become victims of unequal treatment. Consequently, this would elevate the discrepancy among social classes.
In conclusion, the increasing popularity of renowned brands has its roots in owners' desire to show their social status and personal image. I espouse the notion that this phenomenon engenders low-income consumers' elevated financial burdens and the widening gap between the rich and the poor.
- The maps below show a beachfront area in Australia in 1950 and today 73
- more and more people want to buy clothes cars and other products from well known brands What are the reasons Do you think it is a positive or negative trend 84
- The maps show the changes of an office building between the present and the future 73
- The graph below shows the consumption of fish and some different kinds of meat in an European country betwwwn 1999 to 2004 78
- The maps below show a beachfront area in Australia in 1950 and today 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 323, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lebrities and glamorous representatives, numerous consumers believe that luxuriou...
^^
Line 3, column 894, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a privileged fashion" with adverb for "privileged"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...act that the rich are typically treated in a privileged fashion. Therefore, economically disadvantaged ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, if, so, therefore, well, in conclusion, no doubt, as a result, in many cases, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 41.998997996 76% => 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: 1945.0 1615.20841683 120% => OK
No of words: 317.0 315.596192385 100% => OK
Chars per words: 6.1356466877 5.12529762239 120% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.23190700055 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 176.041082164 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.593059936909 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 617.4 506.74238477 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.0302811702 49.4020404114 136% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.5625 106.682146367 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8125 20.7667163134 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5625 7.06120827912 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
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: 0.110015952882 0.244688304435 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0359642688794 0.084324248473 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0300801571186 0.0667982634062 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0625753287896 0.151304729494 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0276068336532 0.056905535591 49% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 13.0946893788 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 26.81 50.2224549098 53% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 18.33 12.4159519038 148% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.46 8.58950901804 122% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 78.4519038076 150% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.78957915832 128% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => 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.