Some people think students should study the science of food and how to prepare it. Others think that school time should be used in learning important subjects. Discuss both views and give your opinion?
Opinions diverge on whether students should take into account studying the science of food and how to anticipate it rather than spending time for the more utmost subjects. In my judgement, although both of these practices have certain merits as well as few drawbacks, I lean forward the latter owing to multiple rationales.
Admittedly, the science of food should be a part of the mandatory curriculum for every student for numerous reasons. First, being fully equipped can help children to maintain a healthy body. To be more accurate, with the knowledge about food learned in schools, children can apply it directly to their daily meals to improve its quality. For example, they can acknowledge that they have to consume more vegetables to avoid digesting diseases. Therefore, this practice contributes significantly to the overall health of children.
In contrast, I fervently advocate that children should carve out their time to delve into other paramount importance subjects. Firstly, it is not necessary for children to spend an immense amount of time studying about food. This can be explained by the fact that in the burgeoning era of technology, they can look for this valued information within the clicks. Secondly, concentrating on chief subjects can ensure children have a good future. Specifically, being adept at academic subjects can let children win a seat at top universities or being recruited for a lucrative jobs in the future.
To sum up, although an influx of people claims that students should be taught about the science of food and its preparation, I reckon that they have to focus on utmost important subjects now that its merits overshadow that of the science of food.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 243, Rule ID: BOTH_AS_WELL_AS[1]
Message: Probable usage error. Use 'and' after 'both'.
Suggestion: and
... of these practices have certain merits as well as few drawbacks, I lean forward the latte...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 575, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'job'?
Suggestion: job
...ties or being recruited for a lucrative jobs in the future. To sum up, although an...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, look, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, for example, i reckon, in contrast, as well as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 7.0 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 1.00243902439 1097% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 3.0 6.8 44% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 3.15609756098 222% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 27.0 5.60731707317 482% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 44.0 33.7804878049 130% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 3.97073170732 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1427.0 965.302439024 148% => OK
No of words: 277.0 196.424390244 141% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15162454874 4.92477711251 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07962216107 3.73543355544 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79653166385 2.65546596893 105% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 106.607317073 150% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.57761732852 0.547539520022 105% => OK
syllable_count: 435.6 283.868780488 153% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 1.53170731707 522% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 8.94146341463 145% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.6152519892 43.030603864 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.769230769 112.824112599 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3076923077 22.9334400587 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.76923076923 5.23603664747 187% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 1.69756097561 118% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 3.70975609756 243% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.09268292683 73% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.23058937883 0.215688989381 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0809402336035 0.103423049105 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0748221314755 0.0843802449381 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155706847854 0.15604864568 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0407188251685 0.0819641961636 50% => 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: 13.5 13.2329268293 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 61.2550243902 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.3012195122 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 11.4140731707 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.06136585366 111% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 40.7170731707 184% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.