Food travels in thousands of miles from farm to the consumers. Many people think eating food from local people would be benificial to the environment and the economy. Do the advantages of eating local food outweigh the disadvantages?
Nowadays, thanks to the globalization, people in any countries are increasingly consuming foods from not only domestic sources but also other territories. Some people suggest the idea that we should only use local foods to avoid any negative effects both environmentally and economically, but I believe that the distant food exchange is harmful to our environment only.
From economic perspective, benefits that trading food bring to our society are undeniable. It helps many developing countries, which rely heavily on agricultural sector as the main contributor to their GDP, to develop the economy via exporting their food products to the industrialized world. This also means that a huge number of jobs regard to producing, packaging and distributing food would be created, helping employ local residents who might not be able to find any other jobs. For example, millions of farmers in South Vietnam have had a descent life thanks to the constant rice-exporting activities for over the last two decades, compared to previous generations with unstable life when rice productions were interrupted frequently because of the uncertain domestic market.
However, food-trading activities cause many detrimental issues to our environment. Firstly, transporting food between nations requires a huge amount of energy, resulting in encouraging exploitation of fossil fuels like oil and coal. Also, the increasing level of emission from the vehicles used to transport food is another concern, which would contribute to the increase of concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Finally, the growth of agricultural activities would encourage people to occupy more natural lands for economic benefits, leading to soil degradation and the decrease of area of land for forest protection and natural conservation.
In conclusion, although I agree that trading food is not environmentally friendly, I would argue that it is completely beneficial in economic terms.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, so, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1671.0 1615.20841683 103% => OK
No of words: 297.0 315.596192385 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.62626262626 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.18102532298 2.80592935109 113% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 176.041082164 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.643097643098 0.561755894193 114% => OK
syllable_count: 523.8 506.74238477 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => 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: 27.0 20.2975951904 133% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 59.0528548795 49.4020404114 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 151.909090909 106.682146367 142% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0 20.7667163134 130% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.18181818182 7.06120827912 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.272467174174 0.244688304435 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10464566155 0.084324248473 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0554718999636 0.0667982634062 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161988963932 0.151304729494 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0540594156457 0.056905535591 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.6 13.0946893788 142% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 27.15 50.2224549098 54% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 11.3001002004 143% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.67 12.4159519038 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.56 8.58950901804 123% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 78.4519038076 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 9.78957915832 163% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.1190380762 126% => 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.