It is often said that the number of products being packaged is in producer and market's responsibilities. However, others assert that buyers are the ones who should not try to buy goods that are packaged heavily. Although I agree that the people who produce items are to reduce the number of goods being packaged, I will give reasons for both perspectives.
On the one hand, responsible for limiting the packaged products are with the companies. This is due to the harmful environment the world is facing nowadays. For instance, the WTF shows that 65% of Japan's sea turtles are on extinction.
Also, packaging materials such as plastics are non-biodegradable which means it cannot be broken down. Since the shop owners are the ones who process goods into plastic, they should cut down the number of plastics being used to package stuff. Even if clients are to avoid buying them, the package itself will remain as waste disposal and the corporations will surely corrupt because of the lack of customers buying their products.
On the other hand, purchasing goods should be avoidable by consumers. To support this, packaging methods are the best method for preservation and maintenance of keeping foods or other valuables hygiene. So the only way is to not buy the packaged products as there is no other way to keep them safe and clean. For instance, after the banning of the plastic packages, some foods were seen rotten and other materials were scratched.
In conclusion, corporations are the ones who have the utmost capabilities to makes changes in the reduction of packaged goods. But it is up to the person for the betterment of keeping Earth clean.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 185, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'valuables'' or 'valuable's'?
Suggestion: valuables'; valuable's
...d maintenance of keeping foods or other valuables hygiene. So the only way is to not buy ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, so, for instance, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 13.1623246493 182% => 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: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 41.998997996 81% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1384.0 1615.20841683 86% => OK
No of words: 279.0 315.596192385 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.9605734767 5.12529762239 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08696624509 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73747382216 2.80592935109 98% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 176.041082164 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.562724014337 0.561755894193 100% => OK
syllable_count: 415.8 506.74238477 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => 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: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.2148344021 49.4020404114 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.2666666667 106.682146367 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6 20.7667163134 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.53333333333 7.06120827912 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.218533375479 0.244688304435 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0711398264702 0.084324248473 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0533729722515 0.0667982634062 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111763085719 0.151304729494 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0436048743502 0.056905535591 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.0946893788 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 50.2224549098 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.3001002004 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.4159519038 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.58950901804 95% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 78.4519038076 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.