Opinions diverge on whether proliferating the price of unhealthy foods can reduce the emergence of obese people or this solution is inappropriate. Despite the arguments back and forth, I still put myself to a group of people following the opposition owing to some rational reasons.
Admittedly, there are some rationales on why adding value to the original cost of fattening foods can use to solve the obesity problems. The diminution in the figure of overweight people that can not afford the fast foods is the most accurate rationale to explain the mentioned solution. The budget of one person is separated into a lot smaller one for distinct purposes, hence suddenly modifying the price can make them not insufficient to satisfy their craving. For example, erecting the cost of fattening foods right after the Black Friday can temporarily cut off the obese people’s habit of buying fast foods.
Although the minor advantages that are bringing back from leaping the price of unhealthy foods, It is perceptible that there are some reasons lead me to reckon that this solution is preposterous and the money value of the fast foods should still be remained. First and foremost, the alteration of fattening food’s prices is not only affect the obese people but also affect to other non-obese people. Fast foods like fried chickens is seemed to be most of the people’s guilty pleasure. Therefore, when they have the mood of eating those foods, they can be unable to afford it because it became more expensive. Other credible line of reasoning is that the idea of erecting the cost of unhealthy foods is merely useful for a group of people. This means that there are still other people like rich people that still keep their guilty pleasure in defiance of how expensive the foods are. For example, the obese rate of the U.S people is still gradually continuing to rise although there have been a lot of economic crisis that significantly affect the price of fast foods of the brands like the KFC.
In conclusion, fairly saying, the augmentation in the price of fattening foods is not a bad idea to solve the obesity problems. However, the disadvantage of it still outweigh the advantage one so this solution is not too optimal.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 920, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: S
...e. For example, the obese rate of the U.S people is still gradually continuing to...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, so, still, therefore, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 13.1623246493 160% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 24.0651302605 104% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 41.998997996 119% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1856.0 1615.20841683 115% => OK
No of words: 377.0 315.596192385 119% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92307692308 5.12529762239 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4064143971 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62398175938 2.80592935109 94% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 176.041082164 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485411140584 0.561755894193 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 593.1 506.74238477 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: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 40.572349643 49.4020404114 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.733333333 106.682146367 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1333333333 20.7667163134 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.73333333333 7.06120827912 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.285474788619 0.244688304435 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102173308716 0.084324248473 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0421615983674 0.0667982634062 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173415236493 0.151304729494 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0507628446272 0.056905535591 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.0946893788 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 50.2224549098 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.3001002004 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.4159519038 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.58950901804 99% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 78.4519038076 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => 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.