Nowadays people waste a lot of food that was bought from shops and restaurants. Why do you think people waste food? What can be done to reduce the amount of food they throw away?
The irresponsible disposal of food has indeed increased sharply in today’s modern society. This tendency is associated with the development of agricultural and consumers’ inefficient shopping habits. However, the problem can be promptly tackled with the joint efforts of consumers and governments.
There are two main driving forces behind the increasing waste of food. The first one probably relates to the spectacular growth of agriculture. With the innovation of agricultural technology and genetic modification, the production of agricultural produce becomes less laborious, which would results in the low expense that consumers pay for food. Unfortunately, it is the low-cost production that purchasers develop the practice of bulk-buying food products and end up wasting them after their expiration date. Another inevitable reason for this throwaway behavior lies in consumers’ purchases without any proper plans beforehand. COVID-19 quarantine perfectly exemplifies this as residents store a large amount of food for fear that the pandemic would interfere with the later purchase. Such tendency, however, undoubtedly leads to food waste due to short-term preservation.
However, some effective measures could be implemented to alleviate the circumstance. The first solution would probably involve consumers’ efforts to develop a habit of making detailed plans before shopping. If people take the detailed purposes of their food products into consideration, the amount of wasted food will decline significantly. Another feasible solution is that governments should launch campaigns against the irresponsible waste of food. Governments can propagate about the detrimental effects of it in social media to raise awareness among residents.
In conclusion, the massive problem of food waste is exacerbated by the advancement of agriculture and purchasers’ poor food planning. Nevertheless, the cooperation between consumers and the government would mitigate the potential impacts.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-30 | Hoàng Ngọc Thảo My | 78 | view |
| 2023-08-28 | nle.hngoc | 73 | view |
| 2023-08-04 | minhtuvn23 | 61 | view |
| 2023-07-16 | phamminhtu | 78 | view |
| 2023-07-16 | phamminhtu | 61 | view |
- The increase in the production of consumer goods results in damage to the natural environment What are the causes of this What can be done to solve this problem 67
- In many countries people are spending more hours at their workplace Why is that Is that a negative and positive development 89
- Some people think that zoos are all cruel and should be closed down Others however believe that zoos can be useful in protecting wild animals Discuss both opinions and give your own opinion 89
- Some people think that zoos are all cruel and should be closed down Others however believe that zoos can be useful in protecting wild animals Discuss both opinions and give your own opinion 89
- These days people in some countries are living in a throw away society which means people use things in a short time then throw them away What are the problems and solutions 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 292, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[2]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'result'
Suggestion: result
...uce becomes less laborious, which would results in the low expense that consumers pay f...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, nevertheless, so, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 24.0651302605 50% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1712.0 1615.20841683 106% => OK
No of words: 284.0 315.596192385 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.02816901408 5.12529762239 118% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.24362099624 2.80592935109 116% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 176.041082164 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.619718309859 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 524.7 506.74238477 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 8.0 2.52805611222 316% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 33.5900380684 49.4020404114 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.705882353 106.682146367 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7058823529 20.7667163134 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 7.06120827912 42% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
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 : 9.0 3.9879759519 226% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.260486705865 0.244688304435 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0841816168571 0.084324248473 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0816293320016 0.0667982634062 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161020906905 0.151304729494 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0415515498267 0.056905535591 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.0946893788 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.31 50.2224549098 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.4 12.4159519038 140% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.21 8.58950901804 119% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 78.4519038076 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.