The food industry has been overusing hard-to-recycle plastic packaging. However, it has caused severe environmental issues. As a solution to the plastic packaging crisis, casein-based plastic packages, which are made out of milk proteins, have recently been invented. The edible milk-based packaging promises to have advantages in general.
First of all, using casein would reduce a large amount of waste. Casein-based wraps are biodegradable, which means they can easily dissolve in water. The good news is, they hardly have any impact on the maritime environment. This is because casein is a chief protein in milk, and protein does not do any harm to the environment when disposed of. Significant drops in landfills can be expected.
Second, food can stay fresher when using casein-based plastic packages. Casein is much more effective in blocking oxygen due to its pores, which are smaller than those of other kinds of plastic materials. Since casein-based films possess strength and low oxygen permeability, they become more effective in preventing food spoilage during distribution processes.
Third, casein-based plastic bags can be nutritious. While many other edible plastic packages are made out of starch, casein contains a high number of proteins and other edible substances such as hydroxyl and amino groups, which are good for producing enzymes, hormones and other bodily chemicals. These are also very nutritious for our bones and muscles. Other nutrients, such as vitamins or probiotics, can be added for more health benefits.
Both the reading and lecture discuss casein-based packages whether they are good or not. Former claims three advantages and the latter counters them by explaining negative aspects of this type of packages.
First of all, author of the reading states that using caesin-based packages would significantly downsize the large amount of waste. However, the lecturer doesn't agree with this and claims that It will actually increase the waste. He says that the package has been subjected to vulnerable to water and heat. So, it would need extra layer of protection in the outside and it would use synthetic wraps which would increase the waste rather than reducing.
Secondly, the reading points out that these packages have maintained the safety of food by barring oxygen to enter. But the lecturer argues that it can't maintain safety due to unable to reduce spoilage. Because it is vulnerable to water as mentioned before. It can absorb water molecules which ultimately change the taste and unable to maintain hygine.
Finally, the reading says that these packages would be beneficial to health by providing nutrition. In contrast, the lecturer rebuts this by saying that sometimes milk is allergic to peoples. It may lead to severe reaction and extremely painful events to people while consuming products using this type of packages.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 155, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... amount of waste. However, the lecturer doesnt agree with this and claims that It will...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 149, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... enter. But the lecturer argues that it cant maintain safety due to unable to reduce...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, while, in contrast, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1124.0 1373.03311258 82% => OK
No of words: 215.0 270.72406181 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22790697674 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.82921379641 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53224099494 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 131.0 145.348785872 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.609302325581 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 345.6 419.366225166 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 23.2890252743 49.2860985944 47% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 86.4615384615 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.5384615385 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.92307692308 7.06452816374 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.148696283394 0.272083759551 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0525622897415 0.0996497079465 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0573637531732 0.0662205650399 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0843396143485 0.162205337803 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0122448341049 0.0443174109184 28% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.