In recent decades, progressive technology brings everything easier and more convenient for people in different areas such as farming.
However, besides these developments in all features of agriculture practices, there would not enough food for some people. Some attributed this situation to the price of products. I will discuss the possible reasons and solutions in the following article.
To begin with, with the advancement in new agricultural tools and knowledge, many are holding a positive attitude regarding the accessibility of various types of food and nutrient materials for all people around the world. However, the dearth of food remains like before or even becomes worse in some countries. Experts believe that this problem stems from the more critical issue, finite resources. Nutrient soil is a pivotal element of having sustainable farming. So exceeding from the normal cultivation even with state-of-the-art technologies, brings about food shortages. The consequences are transparent, increase in the price of food and depress the affordability of buying.
The two more practical solutions would be to expand the area of farming in unusual places and rest the soil to recover itself by planting alternative seeds and products. In most farming courts people tend to cultivate only profitable products even so they would have long-term harmful effects on their benefits. So the government can provide them with free or low price alternative seeds, pesticides, and modern soil nutrient materials. Also, governments can support financially more innovative thought that recently flourished, using their house roof to foster new and adaptable plants to a large extent. Although it can produce far less than conventional methods now, it could be a promising application in the future.
In conclusion, having considered the aforementioned problems and solutions, a higher price is inevitable in the case of finite resources caused less accessibility and more people remain hungry. To cope with this problem the government should encourage their farmers and also pioneers of modern agriculture.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, however, if, regarding, so, even so, in conclusion, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 7.30460921844 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 41.998997996 112% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1796.0 1615.20841683 111% => OK
No of words: 320.0 315.596192385 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.6125 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22948505376 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02114940875 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.61875 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 555.3 506.74238477 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.8407782872 49.4020404114 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.647058824 106.682146367 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8235294118 20.7667163134 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.52941176471 7.06120827912 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => 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: 0.165905067178 0.244688304435 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0454477846957 0.084324248473 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0454839818287 0.0667982634062 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0833572723891 0.151304729494 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0530234497259 0.056905535591 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.0946893788 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 50.2224549098 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.26 12.4159519038 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.81 8.58950901804 114% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 78.4519038076 136% => 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.