Some people think that countries should produce food their population eats and import less food as much as possible. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
One prevailing perspective advocates for the notion that countries should prioritize domestic food production and minimize their reliance on food imports to bolster national food security. While this approach has undeniable advantages, I would argue that it may not be feasible for many nations.
Understandably, some individuals support the idea that producing food for local consumption and reducing reliance on food imports are crucial strategies for enhancing food security within a nation. One possible reason for this viewpoint is the strong correlation between self-food production and employment rates. By prioritizing domestic food production, countries can create a significant number of jobs in the agricultural sector, potentially alleviating unemployment. This is exemplified in the rural areas of Vietnam, where the agricultural industry has not only ensured year-round food production but also generated employment opportunities for thousands of locals, consequently mitigating periods of joblessness. Furthermore, reducing food imports can have a positive environmental impact by minimizing the carbon footprint associated with long-distance food transportation, thus conserving fossil fuels and reducing air pollution.
Despite the aforementioned benefits, achieving self-sufficiency in food production is not a viable option for many countries. This is evident in the case of nations with inhospitable natural conditions that hinder adequate food production for their populations. Japan serves as an illustrative example, as its infertile soil and harsh climate pose significant challenges to agricultural practices. Similarly, Angola has grappled with food security issues due to prolonged droughts, making it imperative for the country to rely on food imports to meet its citizens' nutritional needs.
In conclusion, while prioritizing local food production and reducing reliance on food imports offer numerous societal and environmental benefits, it may not be a practical solution for countries with limited natural resources. For these nations, food imports remain an essential component in ensuring their national food security.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-06-29 | nobitaa | 89 | view |
| 2024-06-29 | nobitaa | 89 | view |
| 2024-01-09 | nguyenkhangtriem | 89 | view |
| 2024-01-09 | nguyenkhangtriem | 84 | view |
| 2021-09-20 | Chinkiarora | 71 | view |
- As housing is a basis need some people believe that the government should provide the free housing for people who cannot afford it To what extent do you agree or disagree 67
- People in community can buy cheaper products nowadays Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages 11
- Fewer and fewer people today right by hand using a pen pencil or brush What are the reasons Is this a positive or a negative development 11
- Some people think that countries should produce food their population eats and import less food as much as possible To what extent do you agree or disagree 84
- People in community can buy cheaper products nowadays Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages 11
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, furthermore, if, may, similarly, so, thus, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 41.998997996 71% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 8.3376753507 228% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1853.0 1615.20841683 115% => OK
No of words: 302.0 315.596192385 96% => OK
Chars per words: 6.1357615894 5.12529762239 120% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.33302942199 2.80592935109 119% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 176.041082164 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.592715231788 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 573.3 506.74238477 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.7816279116 49.4020404114 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.538461538 106.682146367 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2307692308 20.7667163134 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.76923076923 7.06120827912 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.257276882464 0.244688304435 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.109806486043 0.084324248473 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0741192227203 0.0667982634062 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.188136692373 0.151304729494 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0277373933091 0.056905535591 49% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.1 13.0946893788 146% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 22.75 50.2224549098 45% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.3001002004 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 18.63 12.4159519038 150% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.89 8.58950901804 127% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 78.4519038076 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 10.7795591182 176% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.