Food can be produced more cheaply today because of improved fertilisers and better machinery. However, some people argue that such development may be dangerous to human health and may have negative effects on local communities.
Do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, the cultivation period of food is decreased due to the application of the latest technology such as mechanization in the agriculture industry and high efficient fertilizers. In my opinion, these methods might have severe disadvantages.
There are two main reasons why such foods might impact people health and present economy. First, the safety of these foods cannot be guaranteed, because some underlying foods toxicity might be discovered through long-run research. For example, the carcinogenic risk of some specific substance, which has been used to produce food for many decades, are pointed out through the latest research. These components with healthy-risk might have caused many cancer cases. Thus, the potential risks and dangers of some synthetic fertilisers should be confronted.
In addition, agriculture mechanization exists a great many threats to society, especially the fewer job opportunities offering. Compared with labours, machines operation is more efficient. Obviously, such a structure unemployed people might become a serious social issue, who cannot be re-employed easily due to lack of work skills to fulfil the requirements of other jobs.
In spite of this, the obvious benefit of cheaper food production is that they can satisfy requests from the lower-income group or someone suffering from famine. As a result, the living standard of some poor can be fulfilled, and the paid gap might bridge by cheaper food.
In conclusion, these foods might contribute to ease the hunger problem, while improving the living standard of the Poor. Unfortunately, they are undeniable and noteworthy that underlying health risks and structure unemployment due to fertilizers using and mechanization respectively, because they might threat our daily life.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 169, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'foods'' or 'food's'?
Suggestion: foods'; food's
... be guaranteed, because some underlying foods toxicity might be discovered through lo...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, so, thus, while, for example, in addition, in conclusion, such as, as a result, in my opinion, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 24.0651302605 50% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 41.998997996 71% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1513.0 1615.20841683 94% => OK
No of words: 268.0 315.596192385 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.64552238806 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04607285448 4.20363070211 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04040832091 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 176.041082164 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.619402985075 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 459.9 506.74238477 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.2209092184 49.4020404114 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.071428571 106.682146367 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1428571429 20.7667163134 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.71428571429 7.06120827912 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 3.9879759519 226% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.194128023005 0.244688304435 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0669635191437 0.084324248473 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0491618716266 0.0667982634062 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0953074023824 0.151304729494 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0534114297582 0.056905535591 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.0946893788 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.49 12.4159519038 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.65 8.58950901804 112% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 78.4519038076 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => 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.