It is true to say that in some nations many people struggling with a wide range of diseases due to consuming excessive junk food.
It is true to say that in some nations many people struggling with a wide range of diseases due to consuming excessive junk food. In such a context, it is averred that authorities have to raise the price of this food by imposing a higher tax. I am inclined to aver that this idea is increasingly under fire and I completely disagree with it for a multitude of cogent reasons.
It is crystal clear that almost everyone knows that eating fast food consistently and in a great amount may deteriorate their health. However, some people such as vulnerable members of society have not any other alternative options to select. Due to the low price of junk food and far higher cost of healthy and nutritious foods, destitute people have to eat fast food to fulfill their hunger. Therefore, if the price goes up they will, incontrovertibly, suffer to find another cheap food to eat. Besides, many people are employed in the fast food market and they may lose their career as a result of this policy which contributes to eating less easy to prepared food.
From an ethical perspective, individuals are free to choose what they eat and the health-planners have no right to deter people from eating fast food by incrementing the price of it. There are far better and more practical methods to obviate health issues caused by consuming unhealthy foods. As a case in point, people could be informed in terms of the dangers of fast food via social media or special campaigns. In addition to this, the local administrative system has to provide affordable and healthy food for the less affluent people and encourage them to shift their eating habits from fast food to organic meals.
To sum up, it is clear that enacting a higher tax on junk food is top-down legislation and more sagacious tactics have to be implemented to obviate health problems occurred due to eating abundant fast food.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rred due to eating abundant fast food.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, however, if, may, so, therefore, as to, in addition, such as, as a result, it is true, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 41.998997996 124% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 8.3376753507 24% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1556.0 1615.20841683 96% => OK
No of words: 326.0 315.596192385 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.77300613497 5.12529762239 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24917287072 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69079083195 2.80592935109 96% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 176.041082164 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.546012269939 0.561755894193 97% => OK
syllable_count: 484.2 506.74238477 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => 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: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 35.2311051378 49.4020404114 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.692307692 106.682146367 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0769230769 20.7667163134 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.46153846154 7.06120827912 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => 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: 0.328755164408 0.244688304435 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.141152353162 0.084324248473 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.250601896322 0.0667982634062 375% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.219912459911 0.151304729494 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.166373418798 0.056905535591 292% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.0946893788 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 50.2224549098 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.4159519038 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.58950901804 101% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 78.4519038076 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => 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.