It is obvious that nowadays there is an increasing number of people purchasing well-known designer labels of consumer products. While this trend can account for some primary reasons, I strongly believe that this is a negative tendency.
There are two principal reasons why people have a reference for buying brand names. The first one is that marketing corporations always claim that their designer goods would bring customers the most worthy experiences. Such advertisements aim at the young generation who are easily swayed by celebrity endorsements such as Cristiano Ronaldo or David Beckham to promote their products. Furthermore, the vast majority of famous brands are normally durable and high-quality than low-cost products even though some are prohibitively expensive. As a result, those who are underprivileged would try their best to possess designer labels which they think would last long.
However, I would argue that this is completely a negative development. In terms of what ordinary people can afford, consumers are encouraged to squander their savings on designer goods which companies promise will improve their lives and make them happy. From the perspective of social development, owning those famous products will encourage crime, for example, to steal the latest smartphone from people in crowded places. Consequently, criminals will buy those band names at a low price for other people in need and this would lead to more social evils.
In conclusion, there are some essential reasons why many people find brand names attractive, I would argue that this form of consumerism gives people false ideas about what is important in their lives.
It is obvious that nowadays there is an increasing number of people purchasing well-known designer labels of consumer products. While this trend can account for some primary reasons, I strongly believe that this is a negative tendency.
There are two principal reasons why people have a reference for buying brand names. The first one is that marketing corporations always claim that their designer goods would bring customers the most worthy experiences. Such advertisements aim at the young generation who are easily swayed by celebrity endorsements such as Cristiano Ronaldo or David Beckham to promote their products. Furthermore, the vast majority of famous brands are normally durable and high-quality than low-cost products even though some are prohibitively expensive. As a result, those who are underprivileged would try their best to possess designer labels which they think would last long.
However, I would argue that this is completely a negative development. In terms of what ordinary people can afford, consumers are encouraged to squander their savings on designer goods which companies promise will improve their lives and make them happy. From the perspective of social development, owning those famous products will encourage crime, for example, to steal the latest smartphone from people in crowded places. Consequently, criminals will buy those band names at a low price for other people in need and this would lead to more social evils.
In conclusion, there are some essential reasons why many people find brand names attractive, I would argue that this form of consumerism gives people false ideas about what is important in their lives.
- the first man to walk on the moon said it was a great step for mankind But space travel has made little difference in most people s lives To what extent do you agree or disagree 84
- The table illustrates how much money was donated to developing countries in the period 2006 2010 by US and EU charities to support technological development Overall it is clear that total aid increased during this period US aid was considerably higher tha 56
- It is true that playing video games on mobile phones is detrimental not only for individuals but also for the communities While this trend brings numerous drawbacks I believe that the benefits of playing electronic games cannot be overlooked On the one ha 67
- The bar chart illustrates the amount of money spent on three different kinds of clothes per person in the US from 1985 to 2005 It is evident that women and men spend on attire more than boys and girls Besides the average expenditure on clothes grew gradua 78
- Many people are now spending more and more time travelling to work or school Some people believe that this is a negative development while others think there are some benefits Discuss both views and give your opinion 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ieve that this is a negative tendency. There are two principal reasons why peop...
^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...bels which they think would last long. However, I would argue that this is comp...
^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... this would lead to more social evils. In conclusion, there are some essential ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, furthermore, however, so, well, while, for example, in conclusion, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 41.998997996 55% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 4.0 8.3376753507 48% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1412.0 1615.20841683 87% => OK
No of words: 260.0 315.596192385 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.43076923077 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.20363070211 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80352694184 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 176.041082164 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.630769230769 0.561755894193 112% => OK
syllable_count: 432.0 506.74238477 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => 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: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.5573635331 49.4020404114 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.666666667 106.682146367 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6666666667 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 7.06120827912 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.368656488065 0.244688304435 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.136401661875 0.084324248473 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.152723686681 0.0667982634062 229% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.281514250869 0.151304729494 186% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.281766267782 0.056905535591 495% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.35 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 78.4519038076 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.