Today, some families are not eating meals together on a daily basis. Why ? Is this a positive or negative trend?
It is true that in the modern-day, many families no longer have a routine of sitting together around the table for a meal. While some reasons can be explained clearly for the disappearance of this custom, I believe that this trend has negative consequences.
First of all, each household has its own preferences for flavour and cooking. If the family gathers together, the habitual repetition is maintained constantly. Nonetheless, when each person has his or her distinctive time of eating, this daily routine might suffer negative changes as the family members are discouraged from making meals. This then will trigger a bad habit of eating improperly, which results in detrimental effects on health. For instance, a typical family will have dinner at a particular moment together. Due to work, they no longer spend time with one another in the evening and gradually adapt themselves to a new convention. They may not eat the same food, or even just stay hungry because of their laziness. Therefore, that all members spend time on their repasts irregularly can cause damage to their own health in the long run.
Secondly, gathering around for meals is a way to connect people and to release stress during the day since one can tell others about the incidents that happened. Hence, without this daily activity, individuals are more likely to be prone to depression. They have no one to confide in or to empathise with them when facing hurdles. This makes a person feel lonely and raises his or her mental problems. For example, if you live with your parents, it is easier to share how you feel, especially during repasts, because you know that they will support you unconditionally. Nevertheless, this cannot happen when you stay unconnected with other relatives.
In conclusion, eating together plays a crucial role in well-being and mental health. Thus, gathering around the table for dinner should be a regular habit so that one can be healthy physically and mentally.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, you know, first of all, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 24.0651302605 150% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 41.998997996 102% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 8.3376753507 48% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1654.0 1615.20841683 102% => OK
No of words: 328.0 315.596192385 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04268292683 5.12529762239 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25567506705 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74416665395 2.80592935109 98% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.600609756098 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 513.9 506.74238477 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 5.43587174349 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
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: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.16326988 49.4020404114 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.8888888889 106.682146367 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2222222222 20.7667163134 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.2222222222 7.06120827912 145% => 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 : 9.0 3.9879759519 226% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.185096798925 0.244688304435 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0554053064277 0.084324248473 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0553888660037 0.0667982634062 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118750534749 0.151304729494 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.073724764709 0.056905535591 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 13.0946893788 87% => 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: 11.95 12.4159519038 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.58950901804 97% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 78.4519038076 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.