As the issue of packaging concerns the public, people argue that it is producers and supermarkets who should hold responsible for reducing that in preparing goods. However, some think that buyers have a role to play in this problem, by stop using commodity that waste too much packaging. In this essay, I will discuss both ideas before giving my view.
On the one hand, diminishing the amount of packaging for goods in the first place or on the shelves is necessary for some reasons. Nowadays, manufacturers and supermarkets are purportedly adding wrapping objects to their products to make them either more attractive or more seemingly convenient, that incentive people to buy them. Food and drink industries are cases in point, with the packaging is used as a form of advertisement, which eventually generates more profit. Considering that profitability is the essential goal that any manufacturers and sellers pursue, environmental consequences are worth attention. By reaching an agreement of cut back on the amount of unnecessary material used to wrap goods, producers and sellers secure their competitive edge while saving an amount of money.
At the same time, I also advocate the situation where consumers express their criticising attitude on goods that abuse packaging, by refusing to pay for them. Provided that packaging does not enrich any utilising value of the products, nor does it bear any economical advantage for buyers, why should people harm the environment by selecting those products? For example, instead of buying fruits which are already peeled and then wrapped by plastic films in supermarkets, people should buy those in their natural forms. The point is that the consumers' feedback affects the manufacturers and sellers’ strategy. If the products with minimal or even dull packaging gain the public’s interest, those who make items for sale may not bother wrapping their products with mountains of labels.
In conclusion, it seems to me that goods producers and distributors are accountable to deplete the packaging they use, and customers should also give them feedback by boycotting using over-packaged items.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 542, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'consumers'' or 'consumer's'?
Suggestion: consumers'; consumer's
...ir natural forms. The point is that the consumers feedback affects the manufacturers and ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, so, then, while, for example, in conclusion, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 7.0 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 1.00243902439 599% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 13.0 6.8 191% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 3.15609756098 507% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 33.0 5.60731707317 589% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 42.0 33.7804878049 124% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 3.97073170732 126% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1809.0 965.302439024 187% => OK
No of words: 339.0 196.424390244 173% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.33628318584 4.92477711251 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29091512845 3.73543355544 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93669336272 2.65546596893 111% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 106.607317073 188% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.589970501475 0.547539520022 108% => OK
syllable_count: 557.1 283.868780488 196% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 1.53170731707 326% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.07073170732 280% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 10.0 3.36585365854 297% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 8.94146341463 157% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.4926829268 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.4280538268 43.030603864 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.214285714 112.824112599 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2142857143 22.9334400587 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.07142857143 5.23603664747 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 3.70975609756 216% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 1.13902439024 439% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.09268292683 24% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.306052506716 0.215688989381 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0909384191682 0.103423049105 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0657166966524 0.0843802449381 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178538481907 0.15604864568 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0175515615124 0.0819641961636 21% => 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: 15.8 13.2329268293 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 61.2550243902 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.3012195122 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.99 11.4140731707 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.06136585366 114% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 40.7170731707 231% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.4329268293 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.9970731707 105% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.