In recent years, the rise in living costs has been receiving a great deal of public attention. A whole host of consequences can be attributed to this issue, some feasible should be taken into consideration to address this.
The escalating bills might be detrimental to both individuals and society for a number of certain impacts. First, from a personal perspective, due to exorbitant living expenditure, people fail to live rewardingly as they expected. In fact, the higher the standard of living is, the more struggling they must face paying for other services, like food, healthcare, and education, leading people on the brink of consecutive poverty. Second, if people are much reliant on their modest amount of wage, they are potentially prone to carrying the burden of finance and then the emergence of social evils becomes rife and rampant. This means that low-income households unaffordably splurge a larger number of wages on daily necessities, which contributes to petty crimes or drug trafficking for earning their living later on and imposes higher pressures on society to ease the matter worse.
Steps should be taken to alleviate the severity of the problem. First, by narrowing down the gaps between the rich and the poor, it is fundamentally advisable that a reducing taxes policy needs adopting and certifying by the government. For example, low-income families would pay less than the wealthy ones on tariff, which balances standards of living. Second, in order to afford to pay for prohibitively expensive living expenditure, each individual manages their finance properly and wisely in case of urgent cases. For example, they should plan a certain spending range for crucial demands on a regular basis, which they could, in turn, save money on other fields in their lives later on.
In conclusion, because the increasing costs for expenditure put people and society into jeopardy, alternative methods needed to implement. By lessening taxes and considering monthly expenditure, increasing the prices to the full extent is transparently avoidable.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 176, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Mong
... for people to deal with the high cost? mong moị người góp ý cho mình với! thanks a ...
^^^^
Line 1, column 211, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Thanks
...ost? mong moị người góp ý cho mình với! thanks a lot!! In recent years, the rise in...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, second, so, then, for example, in conclusion, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 41.998997996 136% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1937.0 1615.20841683 120% => OK
No of words: 370.0 315.596192385 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23513513514 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38581623665 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83394327355 2.80592935109 101% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 176.041082164 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.610810810811 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 594.9 506.74238477 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => 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: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 10.0 4.76152304609 210% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.1350653625 49.4020404114 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.941176471 106.682146367 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7647058824 20.7667163134 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.05882352941 7.06120827912 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => 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: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.383866289718 0.244688304435 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.136372242896 0.084324248473 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.177879463085 0.0667982634062 266% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.245918502084 0.151304729494 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.282463192515 0.056905535591 496% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.0946893788 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 50.2224549098 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.4159519038 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.2 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 78.4519038076 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.