Nutritious diet, the foundation of a healthy body, has been valued and even triggers a heated discussion over whether the government have done enough work to educate people about healthy eating. Some people believe that lots of efforts made by governments have been put into
helping people learn nutrition and eating. However, my view is that there are much more responsibilities that governments are supposed to take on.
What must be prioritized is that knowledge support in healthy diet are inadequate in both social courses and formal education system, leaving
parents and children unaware of the significance of healthy eating. Initially, courses concerning nutrition knowledge are rarely opened to public. In detail, without access to courses that instruct them to choose healthy food, people may stick to unhealthy eating habits, which may be passed on to their next generations by providing their children with unhealthy food; on contrast, if governments have offered more non-profit diet courses for all social members, such trend can be prevented and healthier eating habits in families would be valued. Besides, it is in school that children can have deeper understanding and training in health knowledge that can help them discern healthy diet, while most schools do not have extra money to teach lessons on healthy eating; how could these schools afford better courses and more teachers in nutrition field if governments are stingy about their financial aids for fundamental education system?
What is equally worth discussion is that governments could be more influential in regulating the food market and have a sway on people’s
eating choice by multiple methods. To begin with, there is few laws that limit the expansion of unhealthy food market. To be more specific,
governments can charge higher taxes in industries and restaurants that serve high calorie or high sugar food, increasing the price of these
products to some extent so people can turn to healthier food for lower price. However, the only existing example is sugar tax in Norway, which successfully change Norwegians’ cognitions about healthy eating; while in other parts of the world, such amendments in food tax are still in debates. Moreover, not only can governments make compulsory tax standards, but also regulate the media to reduce misleading eating concepts. For instance, advertisements and publicities, which overstate the nutrition value of fast food, should be punished for conveying wrong information to the public; but in reality, governments are reluctant to launch these regulations for their fear of overwhelming workload.
To conclude, improving education system and guiding social values by regulations are necessary solutions to educate people about the
importance of nutrition and healthy eating, which is apparently overlooked by governments. As a result, there is much more things governments can do to live up to social expectations.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 803, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to better', 'to well'
Suggestion: to better; to well
... eating; how could these schools afford better courses and more teachers in nutrition ...
^^^^^^
Line 8, column 51, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[4]
Message: Did you mean 'there are few laws'?
Suggestion: there are few laws
...ice by multiple methods. To begin with, there is few laws that limit the expansion of unhealthy f...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, besides, but, however, if, look, may, moreover, so, still, while, for instance, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 15.1003584229 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 9.8082437276 143% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 13.8261648746 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.0286738351 127% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 43.0788530466 49% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 52.1666666667 123% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.0752688172 173% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2506.0 1977.66487455 127% => OK
No of words: 459.0 407.700716846 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.45969498911 4.8611393121 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62863751936 4.48103885553 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85251668679 2.67179642975 107% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 212.727598566 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535947712418 0.524837075471 102% => OK
syllable_count: 752.4 618.680645161 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 9.59856630824 21% => OK
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.6003584229 73% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 30.0 20.1344086022 149% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 98.4336437516 48.9658058833 201% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 167.066666667 100.406767564 166% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.6 20.6045352989 149% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.26666666667 5.45110844103 152% => OK
Paragraphs: 10.0 4.53405017921 221% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.319578170986 0.236089414692 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11081023346 0.076458572812 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.05042779437 0.0737576698707 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134501590074 0.150856017488 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0459161849879 0.0645574589148 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.6 11.7677419355 167% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 58.1214874552 71% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 10.1575268817 148% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.98 10.9000537634 137% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.49 8.01818996416 118% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 86.8835125448 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.002688172 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 10.0537634409 139% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.247311828 146% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 Out of 30
---------------------
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.