Many manufactured food and drink products contain high levels of sugar, which causes many health problems. Sugary products should be made more expensive to encourage people to consume less sugar. Do you agree or disagree?
Our dietary choices influence our overall well-being. As a result, some believe that people have become increasingly reliant on processed meals and that there is too much sugar in the food and beverage goods available on the market. Therefore, the government should levy a surcharge on items with high sugar content. I agree with this approach, and in the following paragraphs, I shall elaborate on my viewpoint.
To begin with, manufacturers nowadays prefer to find methods to describe their products as healthy even if they are not. Thus the public is sometimes unaware of the number of carbs included in the drink they purchase. So, raising costs will certainly limit people’s use of sugary foods. Because sugary foods are inexpensive, many individuals consume far too much of them. For example, in the United States, many fast-food establishments provide free drink refills. Hence, people frequently order two or three drinks with their meals. If these eateries were obliged to impose a 20% tax on these beverages and stop providing free refills, many customers probably wouldn’t order more than one.
Moreover, sugary foods are highly perilous since they lead to obesity and diabetes. Therefore, increasing the price of these harmful drinks and making people aware of the health hazards would encourage customers to make better purchase decisions. In addition, with more and more people switching to healthier diets, the nation will benefit from savings on healthcare in the long run. Thus, superior solutions involve more holistic government intervention.
To recapitulate, sugary foods and beverages are harmful to people’s health. A higher price should be imposed to encourage people to limit their carbohydrate intake and eventually improve the population’s health.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-09-06 | mrsaidovs@mail.ru | 84 | view |
| 2024-08-22 | ThHuong | 78 | view |
| 2024-08-05 | MEBC Class | view | |
| 2024-02-22 | Elahe13 | 78 | view |
| 2024-01-01 | Ahmad_off | 56 | view |
- The government s investment in arts music and theatre is a waste of money Governments should invest these funds in public services instead To what extent do you agree with this statement 61
- In the future all cars buses and trucks will be driverless The only people travelling inside these vehicles will be passengers Do you think the advantages of driverless vehicles outweigh the disadvantages 73
- The government s investment in arts music and theatre is a waste of money Governments should invest these funds in public services instead To what extent do you agree with this statement 61
- my interpretation of civilization
- The government s investment in arts music and theatre is a waste of money Governments should invest these funds in public services instead To what extent do you agree with this statement 61
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 122, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...oducts as healthy even if they are not. Thus the public is sometimes unaware of the ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
hence, if, moreover, so, therefore, thus, well, for example, in addition, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 7.30460921844 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 41.998997996 86% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1519.0 1615.20841683 94% => OK
No of words: 277.0 315.596192385 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.48375451264 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07962216107 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79745426561 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 176.041082164 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.642599277978 0.561755894193 114% => OK
syllable_count: 468.9 506.74238477 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.4332826279 49.4020404114 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.3529411765 106.682146367 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2941176471 20.7667163134 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.88235294118 7.06120827912 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.282253458875 0.244688304435 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0768379628386 0.084324248473 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0425098671463 0.0667982634062 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154575126827 0.151304729494 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0287178567237 0.056905535591 50% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.0946893788 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 50.2224549098 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.3001002004 95% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.1 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 78.4519038076 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.