over-packaged products
Recently, the phenomenon of over-packaged products and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that producer's responsibility is highly beneficial, such issue might be regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that consumers can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From the business standpoint, extra packaging of products can provide the society with noticeable effects, which are rooted in the fact that customer services and attracting consumers are intertwined inextricably with not only beautiful products but also attractive packaging. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered a business policy. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both adding loyalty and higher status apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of economic science, over packaging of goods might increase the consequences of inflation rates. Moreover, fundamental aspects of the economic scale would relate to this reality that the demerits of cost-benefit models pertain to cutting extra costs. As a tangible example, a scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of the company's loss is correlated negatively with additional packaging. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of increasing profit.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the drawbacks of over-packaged products far outweigh its benefits. Not only do the disadvantages of producer's responsibility prove the significance of consumer's care, but also pinpoint its crucial implications.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 142, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'producers'' or 'producer's'?
Suggestion: producers'; producer's
...debate. Although contested by many that producers responsibility is highly beneficial, su...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 6.10837438424 115% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 8.36945812808 84% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 20.9802955665 91% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 31.9359605911 106% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.75862068966 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1509.0 1207.87684729 125% => OK
No of words: 257.0 242.827586207 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.87159533074 5.00649968141 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00390054096 3.92707691288 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.33657984594 2.71678728327 123% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 139.433497537 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.645914396887 0.580463131201 111% => OK
syllable_count: 481.5 379.143842365 127% => 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: 2.0 1.56157635468 128% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.71428571429 233% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 3.65517241379 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.5024630542 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.3463359643 50.4703680194 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.75 104.977214359 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4166666667 20.9669160288 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.91666666667 7.25397266985 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 6.9802955665 100% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 2.91625615764 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.282001674103 0.242375264174 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0931663282859 0.0925447433944 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.140196486662 0.071462118173 196% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.159245099566 0.151781067708 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0480032756165 0.0609392437508 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 12.6369458128 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 24.78 53.1260098522 47% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 10.9458128079 137% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.77 11.5310837438 145% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.88 8.32886699507 131% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 55.0591133005 183% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.94827586207 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.3980295567 100% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.5123152709 162% => 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.