Some people feel that manufacturers and supermarkets have the responsibility to reduce the amount of packaging of goods. Others argue that customers should avoid buying goods with a lot of packaging. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Pollution has been ultimately a problematic status quo that humans have to address before. In fact, one of the agents that has the most negative impact on the environment is packaging. This generates some dispute that manufacturers and supermarkets are in charge of reducing the amount of packaging of goods. From my perspective, I strongly agree with this view. This essay will elaborate on it.
On the one hand, I believe that the manufacturers are accountable for the excessive packaging of goods. For one thing, they may be the roots of this problem, and authorities worldwide ought to strictly impose directives on companies' owners to decline the amount of wrapping. For instance, if makers made non-biodegradable plastic bags thinner or even replaced them with environmental protection materials, would do wonders for the environment. Furthermore, the packaging of goods may have an adverse effect on communities’ health when non-biodegradable materials making packaging can pervade into water or food and make them hazardous and toxic. As a result, makers ought to avoid supplying single-use bags in order not to make a negative impact on clients.
On the other hand, supermarkets and dealers have to satisfy clients’ demands as a responsibility of the job. Therefore, the more people go on to purchase packaged products, the more manufacturers produce the packaging of goods. The supply of non-biodegradable materials will substantially reduce if we prefer to buy products with less packaging. In this way, customers should also be accountable for reducing the amount of packaged products.
By and large, even though consumers and manufacturers have massive influences on reducing the packaged products, I think makers bear most of the responsibility when they have more capabilities to decrease pollution caused by excessive packaging.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-01-20 | hoaithuongnguyen283 | 89 | view |
| 2023-08-23 | quynhu | 73 | view |
| 2023-08-23 | quynhu | 73 | view |
| 2023-08-17 | RkmsU | 78 | view |
| 2023-08-06 | viviannguyen | 61 | view |
- Some people feel that manufacturers and supermarkets have the responsibility to reduce the amount of packaging of goods Others argue that customers should avoid buying goods with a lot of packaging Discuss both views and give your opinion 73
- Some people feel that manufacturers and supermarkets have the responsibility to reduce the amount of packaging of goods Others argue that customers should avoid buying goods with a lot of packaging Discuss both views and give your opinion 56
- Some people feel that manufacturers and supermarkets have the responsibility to reduce the amount of packaging of goods Others argue that customers should avoid buying goods with a lot of packaging Discuss both views and give your opinion 84
- Some people feel that manufacturers and supermarkets have the responsibility to reduce the amount of packaging of goods Others argue that customers should avoid buying goods with a lot of packaging Discuss both views and give your opinion 67
- Some people feel that manufacturers and supermarkets have the responsibility to reduce the amount of packaging of goods Others argue that customers should avoid buying goods with a lot of packaging Discuss both views and give your opinion 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, if, may, so, therefore, for instance, i think, in fact, as a result, by and large, for one thing, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 41.998997996 102% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1573.0 1615.20841683 97% => OK
No of words: 287.0 315.596192385 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.48083623693 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11595363751 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.3278599537 2.80592935109 119% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 176.041082164 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.547038327526 0.561755894193 97% => OK
syllable_count: 494.1 506.74238477 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.061557543 49.4020404114 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.866666667 106.682146367 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1333333333 20.7667163134 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.93333333333 7.06120827912 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.289031159482 0.244688304435 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0894093374819 0.084324248473 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0723648586467 0.0667982634062 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175104422969 0.151304729494 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0664753743292 0.056905535591 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.0946893788 106% => 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: 14.5 12.4159519038 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.58950901804 104% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 78.4519038076 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.