In the past people ate food that was better for their health than they do today. 2
It is an undeniable fact that the quality of the food we eat plays a crucial role in our lives. Eating healthy food is a must for being healthy and as a result having a favorable life. There are many people who believe that in the past, what people consumed as food was healthier than what we eat these days. On the other hand, I believe that today, people eat healthier food than before. I feel this way mainly because with the advances in science, detecting and preventing diseases from infected food has become much easier. Moreover, technology of food preservation has been progressing and spreading increasingly. I will attempt to address the most discernible reasons in the ensuing lines.
The first outstanding point which deserves some words here is that rapid advances in medical sciences has enabled us to detect infected food products and prevent their consumption. Otherwise stated, various types of diseases, caused by unhealthy food products, which were unknown, yet prevalent, in the past, are now understood and controlled. For example, one time, my grandfather told me about a disaster in his village which had been caused by a disease called Malta fever. He said that more than half of the village’s population were sick and nobody knew neither what the reason for their sickness was nor how to cure them. He said that many died during a few years. After years, researchers found out that they had gotten the Malta fever, eating infected dairies. Nowadays, milk and dairies that we buy from store are all checked for such diseases. Thus, the chance of getting Malt fever is almost zero. This shows how scientific improvements has enabled us to access healthy dairies.
Second important reason worth mentioning is that the technology of preserving food for a long time has enhanced dramatically. Put differently, today we can save our food for months without being worried about it going rotten. For example, a hundred years ago, having to use traditional methods for storing and conserving their food, people had no access to such a thing as freezer. As an example, they used salt to preserve meat for a long time, which increased the risk of consuming it after some days. Whereas, today, used at home to preserve fresh meat for months are freezers. Hence, understanding better methods and having access to more advanced instruments, today we can preserve food with lower risk for a longer time.
To sum up, progressing in detecting and preventing food-related diseases and food preservation methods, today, we are able to access more healthy food. Indeed, the result of this healthy food is apparent in the number of deaths from consumption of unhealthy food around the world, which has decreased dramatically over the recent decades.
- In the past people ate food that was better for their health than they do today. 3 70
- In the past people ate food that was better for their health than they do today. 4 90
- Whether travel is a necessary component of a quality education. Discuss and give your own experience. 70
- In the past people ate food that was better for their health than they do today 2 97
- In the past people ate food that was better for their health than they do today 67
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 182, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Otherwise,
...products and prevent their consumption. Otherwise stated, various types of diseases, caus...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, if, moreover, second, so, thus, whereas, for example, i feel, as a result, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 15.1003584229 126% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 9.8082437276 41% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 13.8261648746 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.0286738351 136% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 43.0788530466 93% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 52.1666666667 100% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.0752688172 74% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2312.0 1977.66487455 117% => OK
No of words: 460.0 407.700716846 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02608695652 4.8611393121 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6311565067 4.48103885553 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66293611141 2.67179642975 100% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 212.727598566 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545652173913 0.524837075471 104% => OK
syllable_count: 690.3 618.680645161 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 9.59856630824 104% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6003584229 117% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.5785634201 48.9658058833 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.3333333333 100.406767564 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1666666667 20.6045352989 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.875 5.45110844103 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 11.8709677419 101% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.305045942844 0.236089414692 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0797993251057 0.076458572812 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.06284217626 0.0737576698707 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.180727827735 0.150856017488 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0484565719828 0.0645574589148 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 11.7677419355 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 58.1214874552 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.1575268817 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 10.9000537634 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.01818996416 103% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 86.8835125448 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.002688172 80% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.