Many countries import a large amount of food from other parts of the world. Is this a positive or negative development?
There is a controversial idea heating a debate over whether the food import market has gained tremendous popularity in various nations. Obviously, this phenomenon has both pros and cons, however, the advantages still outweighs its counterpart.
Apparently, there is no doubt that food transportation does bring a wealth of positive impacts on that country. Initially, this occurrence will make food shortage be addressed much more effortlessly. In particular, as the growth of fruit has always been immensely affected by the appropriate climate conditions and soil quality, which some nations don't have, importing sources of intake is one of the optimal solutions. For instance, Singapore imports millions of commodities from tropical fruits such as mangoes and watermelons to even various livestock goods to meet the increasing demand of the domestic market, allowing Singaporeans access to delicacies that cannot be produced domestically due to the unsuitable geography conditions. Moreover, the importation of food also provides customers a wider range of choices. Consequently, consumers are not only offered a monumental amount of products or delicacies that are often non-existent in their home country but also a wider range of price.
While the redeeming features are widely acknowledged, the drawbacks still linge. Evidently, conveying food over distinct nations can take a heavy toll on the environment. Due to the fact that foreign foods are often transported by air and train, those transportations usually use a huge amount of conventional energy source, which leads to a massive exhaust emission. As a result, those toxic carbon footprint will wreak havoc on the environmental quality.
In conclusion, it is clear that food imports do bring a wealth of beneficial influences on both individuals and the nations. However, governments should facilitate the trading market in cross-bordered countries that are much safer and could decrease the deterioration in air quality.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 349, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ns and soil quality, which some nations dont have, importing sources of intake is on...
^^^^
Line 3, column 749, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...suitable geography conditions. Moreover, the importation of food also provides cu...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, consequently, however, moreover, so, still, while, for instance, in conclusion, in particular, no doubt, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 41.998997996 79% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1693.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 301.0 315.596192385 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.62458471761 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1796120143 2.80592935109 113% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 176.041082164 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.651162790698 0.561755894193 116% => OK
syllable_count: 522.9 506.74238477 103% => 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: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.2080266125 49.4020404114 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.928571429 106.682146367 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.5714285714 7.06120827912 150% => 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 : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => 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: 0.179561776736 0.244688304435 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0540457909943 0.084324248473 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0305442501983 0.0667982634062 46% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0955431101537 0.151304729494 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0369544454576 0.056905535591 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 13.0946893788 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.32 12.4159519038 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.45 8.58950901804 122% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 78.4519038076 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.