Convenience foods will become increasingly prevalent and eventually replace traditional foods and methods of preparation. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, hardly any stores are established without the appearance of at least a convenience food shelf. Fast food’s upsurging prominence is so massive to the extent that a number of people express the trepidation of this kind of food’s replacing traditional counterparts and methods of preparation. From my own perspectives, I utterly disagree with this idea.
To start with, it is obviously undeniable that such gigantic conglomerates as Starbucks or McDonald’s are dominating the food market. Their burgers or potato chips with appetitive smell make it impossible to resist. Moreover, these chain stores continue to rolling out more dishes of conventional cuisine, which are peculiar to a particular place. Being cognizant of current health concern, they diversify their menu with vegan or fresh options to attract more consumers. It’s unforgivable mistake to omit the supreme privilege, which is “fast and cheap’’. Therefore, it stands to reason that their primary costumers is single individuals or low-status family, whose meal is only serving the purpose of fulfill their starvation. From all aforementioned elements, that convenience snack is becoming increasingly prevalent is absolutely inevitable.
Nonetheless, there’ll be always appreciation for traditional cuisine as concern about food experience and health. Shoppers frequently turn to fast food as last resort when they are pressed for time. If they have a surplus amount, who can relinquish the congenial and convivial moment cooking and enjoying meals together with our precious family. Conventional food, therefore, become the antidote for isolation and magical glue for family bond. In addition, observing a chef preparing is a concept of art that a large segment of population relish. Not only does executing skillfully complicated guarantee the greatest flavor but also honor the ingredients. To illustrate, it’s incomparably satisfying to watch making sushi with bare eyes. Thus, that traditional cuisine and method become obsolete is far from the truth.
In conclusion, despite the utilitarian benefits of convenience foods, individuals will always prefer the better quality and experience of eating more traditionally.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-03-21 | Nguyen051207 | 84 | view |
| 2021-07-24 | leanguyen | 89 | view |
| 2021-06-30 | phoaiphuthinh | 61 | view |
- Education should be accessible to people of all economic backgrounds All levels of education from primary school to tertiary education should be free To what extent do you agree or disagree 79
- Some countries more and more people becoming interested in finding out about the history of the house or building they live in What are reasons for this How can people research this 81
- The chart illustrates distances traveled per person per week in kilometers in terms of 5 types of transport in the UK between 1990 and 2000 92
- The maps below shows the town of Lynnfield in 1936 and then later in 2007 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 89
- The diagram describes the structure of a home smokery and how it works To summarize information by selecting key characteristics and compiling a report and if necessary make a comparison 56
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 539, Rule ID: EN_UNPAIRED_BRACKETS
Message: Unpaired symbol: '”' seems to be missing
...to omit the supreme privilege, which is “fast and cheap’’. Therefore, it stands t...
^
Line 5, column 675, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...onor the ingredients. To illustrate, it’s incomparably satisfying to watch making sushi with bare eyes. T...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, moreover, nonetheless, so, therefore, thus, at least, in addition, in conclusion, kind of, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 7.85571142285 25% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1894.0 1615.20841683 117% => OK
No of words: 328.0 315.596192385 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.7743902439 5.12529762239 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25567506705 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12515912742 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 176.041082164 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.673780487805 0.561755894193 120% => OK
syllable_count: 581.4 506.74238477 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 5.43587174349 184% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.5589544061 49.4020404114 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.6842105263 106.682146367 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2631578947 20.7667163134 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.26315789474 7.06120827912 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.237305409574 0.244688304435 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0591486642509 0.084324248473 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0667486571734 0.0667982634062 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130153001956 0.151304729494 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0738368940964 0.056905535591 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.0946893788 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 50.2224549098 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.89 12.4159519038 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.21 8.58950901804 119% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 78.4519038076 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.