Today family members do not eat meals together. Is this a positive or negative trend?
The long-standing tradition of families having meals together has declined. While this can contribute to individuals having more free time to pursue personal pursuits, I would argue that this is a harmful development since family members will have fewer chances to forge meaningful relationships.
To begin with, families not having meals together engenders greater flexibility for individuals. Since eating alone is less time-consuming, they are then more available to engage in personal business or other social activities such as meeting with friends or working extra hours. For example, with less time dedicated to sharing a dinner with parents and siblings, a motivated worker might choose to attend a networking event and attempt to forge fruitful working partnerships that may later result in new business and collaborative projects. If they instead decide to focus on their personal life, they will be able to invest more time in their hobbies. The time gained is marginal but meaningful if the preparation for family meals is also taken into consideration.
However, with no family meals, members will lose valuable opportunities to strengthen their relationships with each other. During a meal, everyone in the family can share with one another recent personal news and advice on handling particular problems, which solidifies the connections between each family member. However, when there are no meals to be shared, the bonds between family members may begin to weaken. For instance, recent research conducted by Columbia University has found that the frequency of Americans having family meals has steadily fallen over the past decade. The same longitudinal study also reported a correlation in these families with reduced communication and feelings of togetherness. One possible explanation for this domino effect is that these meals create a structure for the day and without it relationships in the family can become more distant.
In conclusion, though people can have greater time to pursue personal activities when there are no family meals, I would ultimately assert that this is more detrimental since the bonds between family members can become severely weakened. Therefore, people should make an effort to organize such gatherings whenever they can.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-28 | soodinzsh | 78 | view |
| 2024-03-28 | soodinzsh | 78 | view |
| 2024-02-22 | Wardiati Yusuf | 61 | view |
| 2024-02-22 | Wardiati Yusuf | 61 | view |
| 2024-01-01 | tteruchan65 | 56 | view |
- Many people think modern communication technology is having some negative effects on social relationships Do you agree or disagree 67
- A poor infrastructure hinders under developed countries from progress and modernizing Some people think that this should be the first problem tackled by foreign aid To what extent do you agree with this opinion 67
- Rich countries are getting richer while poor countries are getting poorer What is cause of this what could be done to solve tis problem 67
- Task 1 The chart shows the proportion of renewable energy in total energy supply in 4 countries from 1997 to 2010
- Some people say that econnomic growth is only way to end world poverty and hunger Others say that economic growth is damaging the environment and should stop Discuss both views and give your own opinion
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 7.85571142285 191% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1931.0 1615.20841683 120% => OK
No of words: 351.0 315.596192385 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50142450142 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32839392791 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87506879361 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.561253561254 0.561755894193 100% => OK
syllable_count: 614.7 506.74238477 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.2336395961 49.4020404114 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.733333333 106.682146367 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4 20.7667163134 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.06666666667 7.06120827912 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => 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: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.21838184197 0.244688304435 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0878835014307 0.084324248473 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.059579018879 0.0667982634062 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142982140908 0.151304729494 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0528971436258 0.056905535591 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 13.0946893788 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 50.2224549098 62% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.92 12.4159519038 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.14 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 78.4519038076 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.