Food can be produced much more cheaply today because of improved fertilisers and better machinery. However, some of the methods used to do this may be dangerous to human health and may have negative effects on local communities. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is true that science and technology advance has made great contribution to the improvememt of living condition as it increased the food production and reduced the food price by using fertilizer and morden machinery. However, many people argued that the utilisation of these inventions may have potential negative influences on consumer health and local communities. In my opinion, I agree that beside incredible benefits, some drawbacks should be paid serious attention
On the one hand, There is no denying that fertilisers and machinery have served a vital role in agriculture and food production. Firstly, Fertilizers and pesticides have a significant impact on crop yields as it enriches the soil and enhances plant resistance to extreme weather, pets and insects, thereby increasing yields. For example: Urea is a fertilizers that contains large amounts of nitrogen, which is essential for healthy plant growth. Secondly, thanks to sophisticated machinery, nowadays, food can be mass-produced in large quantities with less manual labour. This leads to lower the cost to produce food and make it affordable to more people.
On the other hand, apart from the practical benefits expressed above, I believe that there are some disadvantaged should be taken into account. Firstly, when it come to machinery, the more farming jobs are accomplished by machinery, the higher unemployment among local farmer. And joblessness is the main culprit of social evils as the saying goes "the devil make work for idle hands". Secondly, The over application of fertilisers and pesticides also harm public health and the environment. For example : One popular fertilizer, Urea, produces ammonia emanation, contributes to groundwater contamination while Groundwater contamination has been linked to gastric cancer, goitre, birth malformations, and hypertension, testicular cancer and stomach cancer.
In conclusion, notwithstanding the benefit of reducing food price and enhancing food production. Fertilizer and machinery are accountable for deteriorated health of consumer, evironmental pollution and serious unemployment among local communities as mentioned above
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 347, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a fertilizer' or simply 'fertilizers'?
Suggestion: a fertilizer; fertilizers
...increasing yields. For example: Urea is a fertilizers that contains large amounts of nitrogen...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 162, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'comes'?
Suggestion: comes
...be taken into account. Firstly, when it come to machinery, the more farming jobs are...
^^^^
Line 4, column 313, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...mer. And joblessness is the main culprit of social evils as the saying goes &apos...
^^
Line 4, column 748, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ons, and hypertension, testicular cancer and stomach cancer. In conclusion, no...
^^
Line 6, column 43, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... conclusion, notwithstanding the benefit of reducing food price and enhancing foo...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, while, apart from, for example, in conclusion, in my opinion, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 10.4138276553 173% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 41.998997996 83% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 8.3376753507 216% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1854.0 1615.20841683 115% => OK
No of words: 319.0 315.596192385 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.81191222571 5.12529762239 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22150367647 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 176.041082164 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.633228840125 0.561755894193 113% => OK
syllable_count: 583.2 506.74238477 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.831847229 49.4020404114 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.428571429 106.682146367 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7857142857 20.7667163134 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.2857142857 7.06120827912 160% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.01903807615 100% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
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: 0.214231147987 0.244688304435 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.067737043763 0.084324248473 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0530162479852 0.0667982634062 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122395752526 0.151304729494 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0526928253728 0.056905535591 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 13.0946893788 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 50.2224549098 64% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.71 12.4159519038 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.57 8.58950901804 123% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 78.4519038076 150% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 9.78957915832 163% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.