While cautious interpretation is needed, the findings add to a growing body of evidence indicating that limiting sugary drink consumption, together with taxation and marketing restrictions, might contribute to a reduction in cancer cases
Recently, the phenomenon of limiting sugary drink consumption and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of introduce tax on food is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that decreasing cancer cases can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, the taxation can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the facts that merits of the sugary beverage, as well as cancer development, are inextricable bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered the role of sugary drink. Thus, beneficial ramification of both drinking juice and decreasing diseases apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of science, reduction in cancer cases might increase the consequences of limiting alcoholic drink. Moreover, fundamental aspects of the green tax relate to this reality that the demerits of a pass a new law pertain to limiting marketing. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of reducing TV’s ad is correlated negatively with colorful advertisements. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of the organic juice.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of marketing restrictions far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of the sugary food prove the significance direct tax on food, but also pinpoint heal cancer 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 : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 20.9802955665 86% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 31.9359605911 106% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.75862068966 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1462.0 1207.87684729 121% => OK
No of words: 267.0 242.827586207 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.47565543071 5.00649968141 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04229324003 3.92707691288 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19407371814 2.71678728327 118% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 139.433497537 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.644194756554 0.580463131201 111% => OK
syllable_count: 468.9 379.143842365 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 2.0 1.56157635468 128% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => 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: 22.0 20.5024630542 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.493740943 50.4703680194 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.833333333 104.977214359 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.25 20.9669160288 106% => 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 : 3.0 6.9802955665 43% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 2.75862068966 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 2.91625615764 137% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.184938717934 0.242375264174 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0595008835768 0.0925447433944 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0569197260309 0.071462118173 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0976949737205 0.151781067708 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0190816219921 0.0609392437508 31% => 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: 15.5 12.6369458128 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 53.1260098522 61% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 10.9458128079 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.8 11.5310837438 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.58 8.32886699507 127% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 55.0591133005 180% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.94827586207 146% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.3980295567 104% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.5123152709 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 72.0 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.