In many countries, traditional foods are being replaced by international fast foods.
This is having a negative effect on both families and societies. To what extent do you
agree or disagree with this opinion?
In many parts of the world, families and societies are taking in
much more international fast foods than traditional ones. I
believe this growing tendency is exerting erosive effects on not
only families but also societies.
Firstly, it is noteworthy that the increasing popularity of fast
foods has destructive impacts on the solidarity of family.
Sociological studies have shown that although it is invisible,
traditional foods in daily meals play an instrument in the
enhancement of family ties. Therefore, it will be a mistake to
overlook the fact thatthe convenience of international fast foods
is at the expense of bonding time that people have with their
family members to enhance family relations. For example, the
ever-accelerated living tempo and fierce competition make
people have insufficient time for their family, especially in double
income families where both parents are working as bread-
winners, preparing for a delicious meal and eating together are
ideal activities for family members to share experiences, joys and
sorrows. This example is the illustration of the fact that the
consumption of fast foods for its convenience deprives people of
the opportunity to tighten family unity.
Secondly, the counter-argument raised by objectors to this is
that the pervasiveness of international fast foods is a positive
indicator of globalization and social, economic development.
Because in modern society with ever-increasing pace of life, the
consumption of fast foods that are prepared and readily available
is time-efficient, especially to those who are time-minded with
busy working schedule and. This justification is reasonable to
some extent. However, it is incomplete; what they fail to take
into account is that fact thatfrom cultural perspective, it will cast
a shadow on the inheritance of long-established customs. For
instance, in most cultures, traditional foods are integral parts of
age-old customs, religious events, sacred rituals, cultural
ceremonies as the presence of traditional foods represents
solemnity, eternity. Hence, one can observe that the progressive
vanishment of traditional foods in daily lives is having adverse
impacts on the preservation of local cuisines, national identities.
In conclusion, people should consider the fact that the
increasing prevalence of fast foods has chronic effects on family
unity and cultural conservation as mentioned above.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-12-21 | soji_kab@hotmail.com | 61 | view |
- The two plans below show the Pancha village in 2005 and 2015 78
- Many animals are endangered Some people argue that we should only protect animals that are useful to humans To what extent do you agree or disagree 73
- Many animals are endangered Some people argue that we should only protect animals that are useful to humans To what extent do you agree or disagree 67
- Many animals are endangered Some people argue that we should only protect animals that are useful to humans To what extent do you agree or disagree 73
- Some people believe that educational qualifications always bring success while others disagree Discuss both views and give your own opinion 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 19, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Ideal
...licious meal and eating together are ideal activities for family members to share ...
^^^^^
Line 28, column 40, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
... is time-efficient, especially to those who are time-minded with busy working schedule...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, therefore, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 8.3376753507 240% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2123.0 1615.20841683 131% => OK
No of words: 362.0 315.596192385 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.86464088398 5.12529762239 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36191444098 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.27599269538 2.80592935109 117% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.563535911602 0.561755894193 100% => OK
syllable_count: 661.5 506.74238477 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 67.2115150484 49.4020404114 136% => OK
Chars per sentence: 151.642857143 106.682146367 142% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8571428571 20.7667163134 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06120827912 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 39.0 4.38176352705 890% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.372173010341 0.244688304435 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.131213281524 0.084324248473 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0555900526999 0.0667982634062 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0752670932726 0.151304729494 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0640976107141 0.056905535591 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.1 13.0946893788 146% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 50.2224549098 58% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.0 12.4159519038 137% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.07 8.58950901804 117% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 78.4519038076 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum five paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.