Fast-food companies should not be allowed to give away free toys with their food. To what extend do you agree or disagree?
Fast-food restaurants are known for their attractive and creative marketing compaigns; however, there is always debate on regulation of those sales methods, particularly, free toys that are given away with food. This essay will discuss about why these companies should not be allowed to use this kind of compaign.
There are several reasons why free toys give away should not be used by fast-food companies. One of them is that those free gifts attract more children than adults, thus, make parents buy their children unhealthy food. It is common problem in many developed countries that children gain too much weight because of fast food restaurants. Giving away free toys worsens this child obesity issue.
Moreover, most customers do not usually use these free toys more than one or two times and throw away as soon as they leave the fast-food restaurant. It makes a lot of unneccessary waste of plastic, paper and other materials, from which these toys are made, which is harmful for environment.
On the other hand, too many restrictions and regulation have negative effect on private business sector. Also there are other ways to reduce the negative effects of giving away free toys. For instance, if the parents will supervise and explain their children why they should not buy fast-food, they will probably not get on that trick of free toys.
To sum up, the positive effect of prohibiting a giving away free toys by fast-food restaurants outweight the negative ones. Therefore, this sales method should not be allowed to be used by fast-food companies.
- The following chart shows the percentage of workers by age in four different industries Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 72
- Fast food companies should not be allowed to give away free toys with their food To what extend do you agree or disagree 48
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 106, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...tive effect on private business sector. Also there are other ways to reduce the nega...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, thus, for instance, kind of, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 41.998997996 60% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 4.0 8.3376753507 48% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1316.0 1615.20841683 81% => OK
No of words: 258.0 315.596192385 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1007751938 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00778971557 4.20363070211 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55149477629 2.80592935109 91% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 176.041082164 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.554263565891 0.561755894193 99% => OK
syllable_count: 397.8 506.74238477 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => 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: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.7136353515 49.4020404114 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.230769231 106.682146367 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8461538462 20.7667163134 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.76923076923 7.06120827912 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => 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: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.438914470235 0.244688304435 179% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.167899050432 0.084324248473 199% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103101737275 0.0667982634062 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.266365732717 0.151304729494 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0912749816851 0.056905535591 160% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.0946893788 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 50.2224549098 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.3001002004 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.4159519038 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.58950901804 97% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 78.4519038076 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.