The range and quality of food have changed because of technological and scientific advances. Some people think the range and quality of food have improved, while others think these changes would be harmful. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Nowadays we hanve various catering products to choose, thanks to the technology development. Some people argue these new scientific-based changes are harmful, while others reckon it is good to improve the range and quality of food. This essay will demonstrate reasons why some particular cohorts dislike those changes but why technology intervening food industry is ultimately superior.
It is acknowledged that there might be unknown side effects to certain people to consume food that has been improved by technology. Every individual has a unique physical condition that is hardly all being considered by scientists when they test the generalarity of a new food product. Furthermore, due to the nature limit of the science, we might not be able to testify every posible negative effect a new food product has. Thus, it needs to be admitted that potential harms do exist.
However, advantages of food science far more overweigh its disadvantages. Implementing technology to widen the range of food, as well as imrpove the quality of food, can be eco-friendly. I will justify my statement with a piece of the latest news from BBC. Scientists are working on producing food only by a small quantity of water, air and electricity. Ultimately, this new kind of food will be able to provide enough and sufficient elements that humans require, such as vitamin and protein. Moreover, it will taste exactly as meat and vegetable. This new food will eventually define the term of "food" again and will save numerous land, water and workforce from agriculture. Therefore, if food could be developed, improved even redefined by technology, there will be less pollution to the earth.
In addition, a large range of food due to scientific advances can alternatively save human's life. For instance, the report says there are more than half population in Yemen are facing shortage of food. Because of it, UN announced they have to double the amount of food offering to Yemen to meet the increasing need. If, hypothetically, the science in Yemen is advanced enough to produce more food and better food within a small space, people there might not be suffering from life-threatened hunger right now.
In conclusion, it is recognized that our level of food science might limit us from noticing any side effects of tech-based food changes. Despite that, those changes are actually more eco-friendly and can save lives. Thus, I completely support science to improve food industry even further.
- The range and quality of food have changed because of technological and scientific advances. Some people think the range and quality of food have improved, while others think these changes would be harmful. Discuss both views and give your opinion. 78
- Students in school or university learn more from classes of teachers than other resources (eg. internet or TV), do you agree or disagree? 84
- Many people prefer to communicate with their online friends than to socialize with people in their local communities Do you think it has more advantages than disadvantages 78
- the natural resources such as oil, forests and fresh water are being consumed at an alarming rate. What problem does it cause? How can we slove these problems? 84
- Nowadays people are living in a "thrown-away" society where they use things for a short time and then throw away. What cause this and what problem it may lead to? 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, thus, well, while, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, kind of, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 13.1623246493 160% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 7.85571142285 204% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 24.0651302605 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2096.0 1615.20841683 130% => OK
No of words: 403.0 315.596192385 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20099255583 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48049772903 4.20363070211 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9415949847 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 176.041082164 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5682382134 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 668.7 506.74238477 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 5.43587174349 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 16.0721442886 137% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.8945578176 49.4020404114 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.2727272727 106.682146367 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3181818182 20.7667163134 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.04545454545 7.06120827912 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
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: 0.292939965339 0.244688304435 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0868609100128 0.084324248473 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0849643254767 0.0667982634062 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168635568465 0.151304729494 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0722181619403 0.056905535591 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.0946893788 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 50.2224549098 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.4159519038 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.04 8.58950901804 105% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 78.4519038076 147% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.78957915832 128% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => 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.