People are having more and more sugar-based drinks. What are the reasons? What are the solutions to make people drink less?
The consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages has indeed increased significantly in recent decades. The primary reasons for this tendency relate to the extra energy this kind of drink provides and the unawareness of consumers. However, governments can tackle the problem by preventive measures including taxes and educational programs.
There are two main driving forces behind the prevalence of sugary drinks. Firstly, such beverages provide people with energy. Scientifically, the rush of sweetness contained in these drinks activates a brain chemical called dopamine, leading to a state of euphoria. Covered with hectic schedules, people find drinking these beverages beneficial due to the high concentration they foster. Another compelling reason for this is associated with consumers' lack of awareness. Some people, especially children, are still not equipped with enough knowledge of a healthy diet and lifestyle. In some cases, although some people already acknowledge the detrimental impacts of sugar-based drinks, they maintain the same drinking habits because they cannot refrain from satisfaction when drinking these beverages. Coca-Cola and Pepsi perfectly exemplify this as they remain the leading soft drink corporations despite thousands of articles pinpointing its adverse effects on public health.
Nevertheless, there are feasible solutions to mitigate the problem. Governments can impose heavier taxes on the production and distribution of soft drinks. As the expenses for these drinks increase, consumers would probably be discouraged from consuming them unreasonably. Another viable measure involves educational propaganda campaigns that incentivize people to be cautious about their beverage choices and lead to a healthy lifestyle. This program should be promoted widely in the school curriculum, billboards, and TV channels to yield optimal results. The emphasis should be placed on children who have little likelihood to refuse sugar-dominant drinks.
In conclusion, satisfaction and the unawareness of consumers are the principal reasons behind the escalating sugar-based drinks intake. Governments should take immediate actions, namely taxes and educational programs to eliminate this harmful trend.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, nevertheless, so, still, in conclusion, kind of, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1916.0 1615.20841683 119% => OK
No of words: 315.0 315.596192385 100% => OK
Chars per words: 6.08253968254 5.12529762239 119% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05970816565 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 176.041082164 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.638095238095 0.561755894193 114% => OK
syllable_count: 593.1 506.74238477 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.6781592116 49.4020404114 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.842105263 106.682146367 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.5789473684 20.7667163134 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05263157895 7.06120827912 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => 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: 0.202180501296 0.244688304435 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0555050839967 0.084324248473 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0543377933166 0.0667982634062 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116107469149 0.151304729494 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0390242034677 0.056905535591 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 13.0946893788 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.86 50.2224549098 59% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.69 12.4159519038 142% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.75 8.58950901804 125% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 78.4519038076 161% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => 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.