People in the community can buy cheaper products nowadays. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
It is true that nowadays the price of products is reducing. Although this trend could be beneficial to people in all level classes, I would believe that the disadvantages outweigh its benefits.
On the one hand, there are some advantages in buying cheaper products. Firstly, there is no distinction between lower-class and higher-class, unfortunate people also can catch up the modern world. For example, those who have lower income can order a smart TV, an air condition and so on without think of the price to adapt their basic needs. Secondly, low-priced products tend to encourage the more buyers, this may contribute the prosperity of a nation. A part of the price that the buyers have to pay when buying a product is taxes. The government will use these taxes to support lots of services such as healthcare, entertainment and education. Finally, since the more buyers prefer buying cheaper products the more companies are established to meet the rising demand such commodities. This may tackle the unemployment issue for the country as a result.
On the other hand, besides the advantages of inexpensive products, there are many issues that buyers may bear when buying goods with a lower price. One of the problems is that cheaper products usually associate with the poor quality. Therefore, buyers may consider when ordering items. For instance, when cheaper imports from China first entered the American, Europe and Asia markets, the consumers quickly realised that items such as electronic goods either did not work or early broke down and the material themselves were not durable. Another problem is that this may be an unfair competition in markets. Some organisations put their efforts, invest a large fund in producing products but hardly to sell it out because the same kind of a product but different price people tend to choose which are cheap-priced.
In conclusion, as cheap produce is often of low quality and is produced in unsustainable ways, the drawbacks of low-priced goods surpass the benefits.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-10-02 | myduyen282 | 78 | view |
| 2020-01-18 | Thang Tran | 84 | view |
- The chart below shows the percentage change in the share of international students among university graduates in different Canadian provinces between 2001 and 2006 72
- The line graph below shows the percentage of tourists to England who visited four different attractions in Brighton. 84
- Some people think that schools should reward students who show the best academic results while others believe that it is more important to reward students who show improvements Discuss both views and give your own opinion 92
- The flowchart illustrates the production of coloured plastic paper clips in a small factory Write a report for a university tutor describing the production process 58
- The Table below shows the results of a survey that asked 6800 Scottish adults aged 16 years and over whether they had taken part in different cultural activities in the past 12 months 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 732, Rule ID: KIND_OF_A[1]
Message: Don't include 'a' after a classification term. Use simply 'kind of'.
Suggestion: kind of
... hardly to sell it out because the same kind of a product but different price people tend...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, finally, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, for example, for instance, in conclusion, kind of, such as, as a result, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 7.0 214% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 1.00243902439 998% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 6.8 132% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 3.15609756098 412% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 20.0 5.60731707317 357% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 37.0 33.7804878049 110% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 3.97073170732 201% => Less nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1698.0 965.302439024 176% => OK
No of words: 331.0 196.424390244 169% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12990936556 4.92477711251 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26537283232 3.73543355544 114% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77455893272 2.65546596893 104% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 106.607317073 185% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.595166163142 0.547539520022 109% => OK
syllable_count: 515.7 283.868780488 182% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 1.53170731707 326% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 1.0 0.114634146341 872% => Less interrogative sentences wanted.
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.07073170732 374% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 8.94146341463 190% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.4055915028 43.030603864 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.8823529412 112.824112599 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4705882353 22.9334400587 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.1176470588 5.23603664747 212% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 3.70975609756 216% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 1.13902439024 615% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.09268292683 49% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.218989873607 0.215688989381 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.065914519973 0.103423049105 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0584561625205 0.0843802449381 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11655516362 0.15604864568 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0705258191391 0.0819641961636 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.2329268293 94% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 61.2550243902 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.3012195122 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 11.4140731707 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.06136585366 109% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 40.7170731707 216% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.4329268293 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.