Do you think consumers should avoid over-packaged products?
Recently, the phenomenon of over-packaging and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that this modern competitive market is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that non-disposable wrappers and packets can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From the sociological standpoint, today's competitive world can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that attracting customers, as well as increasing the sale, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered packaging with aluminum foil and superior plastic causes increasing the durability, safety, and freshness of the product. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both consumer's benefit and making products lucrative apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of psychological science, unnecessary packaging might increase the consequences of increasing the costs. Moreover, fundamental aspects of detrimental effects on our health and environment relate to this reality that the demerits of the environmental pollution pertain to emitting poisonous gasses of these packets. As a tangible example, scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of wastage of resources is correlated negatively with colorful and glamour packs. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of deceiving customers.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of over-packaging far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of keeping these sorts of products intact and fresh prove the significance of it, but also pinpoint marketing implications
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 6.10837438424 82% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 8.36945812808 131% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 20.9802955665 110% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 31.9359605911 116% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.75862068966 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1641.0 1207.87684729 136% => OK
No of words: 280.0 242.827586207 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.86071428571 5.00649968141 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09062348924 3.92707691288 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.3318940345 2.71678728327 123% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 139.433497537 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.671428571429 0.580463131201 116% => OK
syllable_count: 519.3 379.143842365 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.57093596059 121% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 0.931034482759 322% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.5024630542 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.1682585572 50.4703680194 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.75 104.977214359 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3333333333 20.9669160288 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41666666667 7.25397266985 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 6.9802955665 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 2.91625615764 69% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.134440674101 0.242375264174 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0439654504771 0.0925447433944 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0467441450483 0.071462118173 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.074913553128 0.151781067708 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0416560694064 0.0609392437508 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 12.6369458128 141% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 22.75 53.1260098522 43% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 10.9458128079 144% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.0 11.5310837438 147% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.43 8.32886699507 137% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 55.0591133005 214% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.94827586207 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.3980295567 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.5123152709 114% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.8888888889 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 80.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.