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 |
| 2021-10-26 | adamneyul | 78 | view |
| 2021-10-05 | minhha | 56 | view |
| 2021-07-16 | tama | 84 | view |
| 2021-07-06 | maiphuong0610 | 73 | view |
- Many developing countries are currently expanding their tourism industries Why Is it a positive development 89
- The maps show the change of Happy Valley Shopping Center from 1982 to 2012 87
- 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 56
- The chart clearly depicts a 7 step process for producing olive oil This sequence of production starts from handpicking and eventually ends in sale or storage 84
- The table below gives information about the level of weekly consumption by different age groups in milk and butter in one European country 73
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 358, 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, for instance, 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: 2049.0 1615.20841683 127% => OK
No of words: 362.0 315.596192385 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.66022099448 5.12529762239 110% => 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: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => 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: 65.3006000535 49.4020404114 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.357142857 106.682146367 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8571428571 20.7667163134 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 7.06120827912 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => 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: 0.226768803373 0.151304729494 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0594329141813 0.056905535591 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.2 13.0946893788 139% => 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: 15.84 12.4159519038 128% => 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?
---------------------
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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 358, 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, for instance, 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: 2049.0 1615.20841683 127% => OK
No of words: 362.0 315.596192385 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.66022099448 5.12529762239 110% => 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: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => 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: 65.3006000535 49.4020404114 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.357142857 106.682146367 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8571428571 20.7667163134 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 7.06120827912 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => 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: 0.226768803373 0.151304729494 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0594329141813 0.056905535591 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.2 13.0946893788 139% => 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: 15.84 12.4159519038 128% => 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?
---------------------
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.