Some people feel that manufactures 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.
Nowadays, opinions differ as to whether it is superior for producers and commercial centers to have onus to cut down the utilisation of packages to wrap products. Although some experts acknowledge that suppliers should be responsible for this issue, I would advocate that buyers also need to be involved in.
On the one hand, a vast array of factors has prevailed some individuals to support for the former opinion. Firstly, when reducing the number of commodities stored in packages, manufactures are able to join hands to prevent the ecosystem from being deteriorated by package-pollution. This can be perfectly exemplified that in some developed nations like the USA or the UK, goods- suppliers are prone to use ecologically sustainable materials such as paper or leaf to wrap their products. Accordingly, this trend is capable of alleviating the ominous influences of production processes on the environment. Furthermore, if producers and supermarkets prioritise to reduce the amount of packaged goods, customers might have to purchase those put in eco-friendly materials. This is because the number of packaged commodities offered in stores declines. Therefore, purchasers are gradually aware of the detrimental effects of buying packaged goods.
On the other hand, there are a host of justifications convincing me to concede that customers ought to abolish to purchase commodities with a lot of packaging. The primary reason is that if buyers are prone to quit buying packaged goods, there would be an enormous pressure put on producers since they have to reduce the use of packages in order to meet the demands of purchasers. To illustrate, the authorities of Ho Chi Minh city have launched a campaign to encourage local inhabitants to prefer commodities stored in papers or leaves. As a result, it is witnessed in a great number of local markets that goods with a lot of packaging have diminished substantially. Moreover, when customers are prone to keen on commodities stored in eco-friendly materials in lieu of those with packaging, the quantity of packages discharged to the environment would decline. Hence, the ecosystem could be prevented from being exacerbated.
In conclusion, apparently, it cannot be denied that manufactures and supermarkets ought to be responsible to reduce the amount of packaged goods, I want to affirm that it is necessary for buyers to take accountability in terms of this problem.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 27, Rule ID: WHETHER[6]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "as to"?
Suggestion: whether
Nowadays, opinions differ as to whether it is superior for producers and commer...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 32, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'hosts'?
Suggestion: hosts
... goods. On the other hand, there are a host of justifications convincing me to conc...
^^^^
Line 4, column 244, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ccountability in terms of this problem.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, apparently, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, moreover, so, therefore, as to, in conclusion, such as, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 13.1623246493 160% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 41.998997996 174% => 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: 2043.0 1615.20841683 126% => OK
No of words: 385.0 315.596192385 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30649350649 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4296068528 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.23156969159 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 176.041082164 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.519480519481 0.561755894193 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 654.3 506.74238477 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.1928602543 49.4020404114 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.6875 106.682146367 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0625 20.7667163134 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.8125 7.06120827912 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.67935871743 150% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.282551937482 0.244688304435 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0897467556833 0.084324248473 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0582490773339 0.0667982634062 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169021826495 0.151304729494 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0423741197777 0.056905535591 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 13.0946893788 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 50.2224549098 77% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.4159519038 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.38 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 78.4519038076 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.