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 passage tells that people are trying to reduce the amount of meat from a diet. So scientists developed a method for creating simulated meats and people should use this simulated meat. However, the lecturer does not agree with this, he provided the following three reasons.
Firstly, natural meat requires a large amount of industry, land, water to produce it and also create pollution. On the other hand, the teacher argues that plants needed for the production of simulated meat also require artificial pesticides and chemicals which also contribute to environmental pollution.
Secondly, the passage states that meat can cause cancer and is not healthy for individuals. However, the lecturer claims that meat contains minerals and vitamins which are not available in artificial plant-generated meat.
Finally, the reading asserts that simulated meat is safer for people because there is a lower chance of being contaminated by bacteria. In contrast, the professor does not agree with this he states that simulated meat can cause an allergic reaction in the individual because they are made from many unknown products which everyone don't know that's why considering the above reason professor does not agree with using simulated meat over natural meat for eating.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 332, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...om many unknown products which everyone dont know thats why considering the above re...
^^^^
Line 4, column 342, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
...known products which everyone dont know thats why considering the above reason profes...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1073.0 1373.03311258 78% => OK
No of words: 200.0 270.72406181 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.365 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.76060309309 4.04702891845 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64941031175 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 116.0 145.348785872 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.58 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 333.0 419.366225166 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => 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: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.5030437846 49.2860985944 147% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.222222222 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2222222222 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.2222222222 7.06452816374 159% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.37864000367 0.272083759551 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.175616096695 0.0996497079465 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10565725931 0.0662205650399 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.240320763182 0.162205337803 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0761215146622 0.0443174109184 172% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 50.0 63.6247240618 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.