Many people are trying to reduce the amount of meat that they eat, but they still crave meat products. Scientists have recently developed methods to create simulated meats from vegetable protein that have the appearance, taste, and texture of real meat to satisfy that demand. These products promise to make our food better for the environment, healthier, and safer.
First of all, simulated meat is better for the environment. Raising livestock to produce meat is a massive industry that requires large amounts of water and land, and rainforest is often cut down to create more grazing land. The meat industry also generates huge amounts of air and water pollution. Simulated meats are made from plants and fungi; which use less land and other resources and generate less pollution.
Second, simulated meat is much healthier for people than consuming meat and meat products. Experts recommend that people eat less meat because it contains more unhealthy fats than vegetables, and eating meat products also raises the chances of developing some types of cancer. Vegetables also contain more vitamins and minerals than meat and higher amounts of dietary fiber and healthy carbohydrates that meat cannot provide. Since simulated meats are made entirely from vegetables and other plant products, they are healthier.
Finally, simulated meats are much safer for people to eat because there is a lower chance of them being contaminated with bacteria. Animals naturally contain more harmful bacteria in their bodies than plants do, and those bacteria can be transferred to the people that eat them, causing illness. Simulated meats contain far fewer bacteria, and the ingredients are cooked thoroughly in the process of making them, so they are much safer to eat.
The reading and the lecture are about comparing the simulated meat and natural meat on the basis of different reasons. The author of the article provides three theories about the benefits of eating simulated meat. The lecturer disputes the claims made in the article. His position is that the simulated meat also has many disadvantages that could be a point of concern.
According to the reading, the author explains that artificial meat is beneficial for the environment. The article mentions that a large amount of area is required to pasture the meet. Whereas, simulated meats are manufactured from plants that are environmentally friendly. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He claims that the production of many grains and soya beans involve the usage of fertilizers and pesticides which can equally harm the environment. Additionally, he points out that the rainforest are compromised for both types of meats with very little observable difference.
Secondly, the author suggests that simulated meat is healthy for humans. In the article, it is said that meat contains unhealthy fats than the artificial meat and there is some probability of catching cancer. Whereas, the simulated meat is made from healthy vegetables. The lecturer, however, asserts that the nutritional value of vegetables is reduced significantly because of the chemical processes. He goes on to say that the amount of sodium and oil is much more than that of normal vegetables.
Finally, the author posits that simulated meats are safe to eat because they are not having any bacterial contamination. The author contends that there are dangerous and life threatening bacterias found in meats which could cause illness. Whereas the simulated meats contains lesser bacterias and are safer to consume. In contrast, the lecturer's stance is that there are different kinds of allergies which people have towards food. If people are not able to understand the label of ingredients on the food packet, then they might show the symptoms of allergy. He notes that people can easily find information about allergies on naturally occuring meat.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 215, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... the benefits of eating simulated meat. The lecturer disputes the claims made in th...
^^^
Line 3, column 185, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whereas” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...f area is required to pasture the meet. Whereas, simulated meats are manufactured from ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 210, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whereas” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...is some probability of catching cancer. Whereas, the simulated meat is made from health...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 337, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lecturers'' or 'lecturer's'?
Suggestion: lecturers'; lecturer's
... are safer to consume. In contrast, the lecturers stance is that there are different kind...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, whereas, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 10.4613686534 210% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 12.0772626932 157% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1798.0 1373.03311258 131% => OK
No of words: 339.0 270.72406181 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30383480826 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29091512845 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83601587642 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 145.348785872 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.52802359882 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 559.8 419.366225166 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 13.0662251656 161% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 26.6147453717 49.2860985944 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 85.619047619 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.1428571429 21.698381199 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.61904761905 7.06452816374 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.389978081242 0.272083759551 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11417944982 0.0996497079465 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0759394724787 0.0662205650399 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.238207744308 0.162205337803 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.042494049583 0.0443174109184 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.16 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 63.6247240618 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.