Social health is increasingly deteriorating throughout the world, especially in modern countries. Today, the problem is getting worse because of people's sophisticated lifestyles which force them to eat junk food or unhealthy products of an unsustainable agriculture system. Some believe that putting a tax on fast food can reduce this burning problem. It disagrees that increasing the price would encourage people to use more sound nutrients, as it raises people's willingness to buy a product. moreover, it leads to a drop in the quality of selected foods by people. These reasons will be discussed in this order.
Firstly, there is an inverse relationship between the price of a product and the demand for it. Take any commodity as an example, higher prices even can contribute to more deriving demands, as it illustrates more product value. Thus, using this method to reduce the use of convenience foods and encouraging people to eat more organic and healthy ones is refuted.
On the other hand, it is obvious that in a modern society people give preference to foods which are readily available. In this situation, it is clear that increasing the price has a detrimental effect on public health, as people might not consume quality food. For instance, replacing brown sugar with white one in a confectionary item reduces its price and quality. Therefore, it is obvious that this strategy would generate severe subsequent consequences like obesity, heart disease, higher cholesterol level and mental illnesses such as depression. Thus, a tax that increases the overall price of instant food is not a rational strategy to control the amount of use.
Following the analyzation of price inability to control demands and encouraging the use of less quality food, it is clear that increasing tax would not contribute to public health. Further, it is expected that policymakers consider more sustainable strategies for the domestic use of proper foods.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 495, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Moreover
...s peoples willingness to buy a product. moreover, it leads to a drop in the quality of s...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 336, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'redux'?
Suggestion: redux
... with white one in a confectionary item reduces its price and quality. Therefore, it is...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, moreover, so, therefore, thus, for instance, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 41.998997996 83% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1640.0 1615.20841683 102% => OK
No of words: 313.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23961661342 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91665819702 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 176.041082164 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575079872204 0.561755894193 102% => 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: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => 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: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.8747421608 49.4020404114 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.5 106.682146367 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5625 20.7667163134 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.06120827912 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => 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: 0.182015881395 0.244688304435 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0647274812959 0.084324248473 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0864476631285 0.0667982634062 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112590793373 0.151304729494 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0765957058443 0.056905535591 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.0946893788 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.4159519038 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.42 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 78.4519038076 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 9.78957915832 72% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => 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.