The land requirement for manufacturing meat is comparatively higher than for growing crops. Some people claim that global meat use ought to be decreased due to the limited availability of land. To bring the rates of meat use down, two methods can be applied: prioritizing fish and plant food use and discouraging meat use. However, these can affect the well-being of mankind in the long run.
Promoting plant products and fish is the best method to reduce eating meat. Put simply, this can be achieved by raising public awareness about the health benefits of alternative food items and the disadvantages of meat consumption. For example, were people to know the positive effects of vitamins, minerals, and anti-oxidant, which are contained in fruits and vegetables, but they will deliberately reduce meat consumption if they know that meatatarians are 75% more likely to develop cardiovascular diseases in their fifty’s, according to the annual newsletter of the national health ministry.
However, the reduced amount of meat in meals causes chronic anemia. In other words, the bioavailability of iron in plant foods is markedly lower than meat iron, thereby the iron absorption is lower for plant foods, which leads to low levels of hemoglobin in the blood. In turn, anemia gives rise to various long-term health issues, including poor cognition and chronic heart failure. This is supported by a recent study conducted at Oxford University, in which they claimed that the Mathematical skills of 14 to 16 aged vegetarians is 50% less than meat-eaters.
In conclusion, some people believe that meat-eating should be decreased due to the scarcity of lands, which are necessary in large amounts for the production of meat. This can be done by educating the public about the positive effects of alternative food and the negative effects of animal flesh. However, the reduction of global meat consumption will lead to chronic health issues due to the anemia caused by the lower bioavailability of plant iron.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, so, well, for example, in conclusion, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 24.0651302605 50% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1691.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 324.0 315.596192385 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21913580247 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9367069052 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 176.041082164 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.543209876543 0.561755894193 97% => OK
syllable_count: 516.6 506.74238477 102% => 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: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.7781077534 49.4020404114 149% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.785714286 106.682146367 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1428571429 20.7667163134 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 7.06120827912 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.297721325262 0.244688304435 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111656068167 0.084324248473 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.069311059714 0.0667982634062 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.190093017273 0.151304729494 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0512957213214 0.056905535591 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.0946893788 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 50.2224549098 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.4159519038 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.31 8.58950901804 108% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 78.4519038076 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.