Today much of the food people eat gets transported from farms that are thousands of miles away. Some people believe it would be better for the environment and the economy if people only consumed food produced by local farmers. Would the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?
These days, regardless of the dramatic impacts derived from purchasing foodstuff that is thousands of miles away, a group of individuals reckon that eating food yielded in the local area could have more positive outcomes for the environment’s conditions and the economic activities. Though there are numerous demerits from this statement, I strongly hold a belief that its merits eclipse its downsides.
On the one hand, there are few rationales to demonstrate why the consumption of local foods results in detrimental repercussions in the various aspect of human’s life. The first drawback is a shortage of new-emerging food experiences considered as one of the most crippling problems via eating municipal products. In fact, there is an increase in the number of citizens taking their long period of time to transform their taste by virtue of not being intriguing for local food which seems not to trigger far-reaching changes from time to time. Another fact is that the disadvantage of increasing the product’s cost without any hesitations from the local farmers because of insufficient commodities. As the product costs are accelerated, the consumers would take their expenditure into consideration prior to their purchases.
On the contrary, despite these aforementioned downsides, its merits could bring a variety of beneficial ramifications in terms of the environment and the economy. First and foremost, it is when the upsurge of consuming food products makes a tremendous contribution to curbing the unemployment rate which has posed a multitude of impediments to the governments over the past few years. This prevailing phenomenon is to generate a host of works for people suffered from being unemployed. Hence, if this measure is implemented, not only will they be earned the amount of money to retain their life, but also enhance the strides of the national economy. In other words, by opting a plethora of foodstuffs for the consumption from places or shops which are far away, exerting detrimental impacts on the environment. When the product of food which is transported from far-off destinations, have a predisposition to discharge a large influx of gas emission to the environment. More consequently, this would not only plunge the environment into utter destruction but also take its toll on people’s health condition.
In conclusion, as cited above, in spite of negative corollaries in respect of eating local products, I concur with the idea that consuming local foods are able to reap an array of benefits more than its disadvantages.
- The table below gives information about student enrolments at Manchester University in 1937 1967 and 2017 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 42
- In some countries around the world men and women are having children late in life What are the reasons for this development What are the effects on society and family life You should write at least 250 words 67
- the chart below gives information about car ownership in uk from 1975 to 2005 73
- In the past shopping was a routine domestic task Many people nowadays regard it as a hobby To what extent do you think this is a positive trend 67
- The table below gives information about student enrolments at Manchester University in 1937 1967 and 2017 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 389, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...he number of citizens taking their long period of time to transform their taste by virtue of n...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, hence, if, so, in conclusion, in fact, in other words, in spite of, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 24.0651302605 104% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 41.998997996 162% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2172.0 1615.20841683 134% => OK
No of words: 406.0 315.596192385 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34975369458 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48881294772 4.20363070211 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15326734594 2.80592935109 112% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 176.041082164 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.568965517241 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 673.2 506.74238477 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 20.2975951904 133% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 46.8703175439 49.4020404114 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.8 106.682146367 136% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0666666667 20.7667163134 130% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.66666666667 7.06120827912 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => 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: 0.299318654626 0.244688304435 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0875075634264 0.084324248473 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0512434120482 0.0667982634062 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.160140595936 0.151304729494 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0474170771477 0.056905535591 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 13.0946893788 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 50.2224549098 71% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.3001002004 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.4159519038 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.03 8.58950901804 117% => OK
difficult_words: 130.0 78.4519038076 166% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.78957915832 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.1190380762 126% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => 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.