Food travels thousands of miles from producers to customers. Some people think it would be better for the environment and economy if people only eat the local food produced by farmers. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Edible fresh and packaged food products have to cover long distance to reach final consumer. Some people opine locally sourced food items should be consumed for an ecological and economical advantage. This essay mostly disagrees with the given view point and will explain reasons for the same.
Firstly, as technological innovations has spur the growth rate of economies from agrarian to service oriented industries, our lifestyles are oriented to fast paced tracks, with limited time. So, the need of hour is to have processed foods as compared to local raw products. Economies of scale will further lower the cost of production and transportation. Additionally masses will have variety and lot more choices to select from. This will make market more competitive and less monopolized. For instance, recent study by Boston University, Sociology wing highlighted that there was 26% increase in people relocating other continents due to availability of local food items.
Secondly, though major input costs include transportation, this would be minimized with the advent of “electronic vehicles” with high-efficiency. Furthermore, freshness of raw fruits and vegetables can be sustained with cold storages and transportation services. Also, economic progress is sustainable in long run when there is trade happening with equivalent demand and supply levels. For instance, as per a recent report released by ministry of commerce, government of India has made a positive correlation between major FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) companies higher sales net. Farmer’s income from where these companies source the raw material.
To conclude, limitation in sourcing food supplies from local markets will only lead to limited market capability and fewer options to suits everyone’s taste.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 43, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'spurred'.
Suggestion: spurred
...rstly, as technological innovations has spur the growth rate of economies from agrar...
^^^^
Line 2, column 355, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Additionally,
... cost of production and transportation. Additionally masses will have variety and lot more c...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, if, second, secondly, so, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 6.0 24.0651302605 25% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 41.998997996 86% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1533.0 1615.20841683 95% => OK
No of words: 270.0 315.596192385 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.67777777778 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05360046442 4.20363070211 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09298289841 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 176.041082164 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.696296296296 0.561755894193 124% => OK
syllable_count: 480.6 506.74238477 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.950639595 49.4020404114 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.2 106.682146367 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 20.7667163134 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.86666666667 7.06120827912 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
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: 0.178923317929 0.244688304435 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0555298921479 0.084324248473 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0548814278424 0.0667982634062 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113389679178 0.151304729494 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0517358902047 0.056905535591 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.0946893788 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 50.2224549098 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.37 12.4159519038 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.32 8.58950901804 120% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 78.4519038076 126% => 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.