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. One of the agents that has the most negative impact on the environment is the 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. In this essay, I will elaborate on it and give my opinions.
On the one hand, I believe that the manufacturers have to be held accountable for the excessive packaging of goods. To begin with, they may be the roots of the whole of distributing kinds of stuff, and governments all over the world ought to strictly impose directives on companies' owners to decline the amount of packaging. For instance, non-biodegradable plastic bags if makers made them thinner or even replaced them with environmental protection materials, would do wonders for the environment. Furthermore, the packaging of goods hurts communities’ health when nylon and other 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. In addition, 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 producers have massive influences on reducing the packaged products, I think makers bear most of the responsibilities 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
- The charts below show the results of a survey on happiness ratings for married and unmarried people in the US and the effect of children on the overall ratings of married couples 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 87
- 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 67
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, if, may, so, therefore, for instance, i think, in addition, as a result, by and large, to begin with, 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: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1619.0 1615.20841683 100% => OK
No of words: 303.0 315.596192385 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34323432343 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.24534056792 2.80592935109 116% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 176.041082164 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.547854785479 0.561755894193 98% => OK
syllable_count: 506.7 506.74238477 100% => 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: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.2720846725 49.4020404114 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.933333333 106.682146367 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2 20.7667163134 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.53333333333 7.06120827912 135% => 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: 0.307555821043 0.244688304435 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0932513714018 0.084324248473 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.068988620161 0.0667982634062 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.177610544156 0.151304729494 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0646043670836 0.056905535591 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.0946893788 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 50.2224549098 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.4159519038 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.8 8.58950901804 102% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 78.4519038076 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.