Social health is increasingly deteriorating throughout the world, especially in modern countries. Today, the problem is getting worse because of people's busy lifestyles which force them to eat junk food. Some believe that putting a tax on fast food can reduce the problem. But It disagrees that increasing the price would change the situation, as it raises people's willingness to buy a product. Also, it leads to a drop in the quality of selected foods by people. These reasons will be discussed in this order.
Firstly, most of the time there is an inverse relationship between the price of a product and demand for it. Take any commodity as an example, higher prices even can contribute to more deriving demands, as it illustrates more product value. Thus, using this method to reduce the use of convenience foods and encouraging people to eat more organic and healthy ones is refuted.
On the other hand, it is obvious that in a modern society people give preference to foods which are readily available. In this situation, it is clear that increasing the price has an inverse impact on public health, as people might not consume quality food. For instance, replacing brown sugar with white one in a confectionary item reduces its price and quality. Therefore, it is obvious that this strategy would generate severe subsequent consequences. Thus, a tax that increases the overall price of fast food is not a rational strategy to control the amount of use.
Following the analyzation of price inability to control demands and encouraging the use of less quality food, it is clear that increasing tax would not contribute to public health. Further, it is expected that policymakers consider more sustainable strategies to overcome this major problem all over the world.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 333, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'redux'?
Suggestion: redux
... with white one in a confectionary item reduces its price and quality. Therefore, it is...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, so, therefore, thus, for instance, 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: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 41.998997996 81% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1483.0 1615.20841683 92% => OK
No of words: 293.0 315.596192385 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0614334471 5.12529762239 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13729897018 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78933775831 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 176.041082164 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.559726962457 0.561755894193 100% => OK
syllable_count: 472.5 506.74238477 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.1307725571 49.4020404114 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.6875 106.682146367 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3125 20.7667163134 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.1875 7.06120827912 73% => 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: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.207245113513 0.244688304435 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0759390477427 0.084324248473 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0991718775459 0.0667982634062 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134148246708 0.151304729494 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0771610198244 0.056905535591 136% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.0946893788 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 50.2224549098 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.4159519038 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.84 8.58950901804 103% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 78.4519038076 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 9.78957915832 72% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.