People in community can buy cheaper products nowadays. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
It is obvious that trading has been playing a critical role in human's life these days and consuming more inexpensive goods has been becoming a tendency. While this has several bright sides, I would argue that its drawbacks are more significantly.
On the one hand, it is clear that cheap products would bring about several advantages. Firstly, because of the decreased prices of certain goods which used to be pricey in the past time such as air conditioners or automobiles, low-status habitants now could afford these types of products. This might allows the poor to facilitate themselves better benchmarks of modern lites. Another reason is that cheaper goods may drive the consumers' demands for buying new products. It means that manufacturers could have more stimulations to produce and foster trading. As a result, the local economies are more likely to benefit significantly from
that trend.
On the other hands, I firmly contend that this tendency might give rise to many detrimental drawbacks. Producing and consuming inexpensive products may directly affect the natural resources such as fossil fuel. It is the fact that producers tend to cut down on the quality of initial materials to diminish the cost of cheap goods. The final outputs, consequently, may be not sustainable for prolonged usage's purpose, which lead consumers to buy a new ones and discharge more house-hold trash into the environment. As a result, our descendants may no longer have sufficient non-renewable resources to utilize. In addition, "forever chemicals", which was assumed to be the main culprit of certain cancers, contained in cheap goods may put consumers'health at risk. And this is likely to put more pressures on health security of a larger communities.
To conduce, while inexpensive products could have a number of benefits associating with consumers' criteria and the economy as a whole, I strongly believe that its disadvantages relevant to health prospect and environmental ones should be taken into account in the second thought.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-11-06 | nhatkhang111 | 78 | view |
| 2024-10-24 | linh allie | 89 | view |
| 2024-10-24 | linh allie | 84 | view |
| 2024-10-17 | hahoaan | 89 | view |
| 2024-10-01 | tata | 11 | view |
- As housing a basic need for people the government should provide free housing for everyone who can not afford it To what extent do you agree or disagree 67
- Some people think that the governments should care more about the elderly while others argue that it is better to invest in the young generatiom in terms of education Discuss both views and give your own opinion 73
- Government should make laws about people s nutrition and food choices Others argue that it is their choice Discuss both views and give your own opinion 73
- Fewer and fewer people today right by hand using a pen pencil or brush What are the reasons Is this a positive or a negative development 11
- Everyday millions of tons of food are wasted all over the world Why do you think this is happening And how can we solve this problem 61
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 177, Rule ID: PAST_TIME[1]
Message: Did you mean 'pastime'?
Suggestion: pastime
...in goods which used to be pricey in the past time such as air conditioners or automobiles...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, firstly, if, may, second, so, while, in addition, such as, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 41.998997996 93% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 8.3376753507 24% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1724.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 324.0 315.596192385 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32098765432 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04138126515 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 176.041082164 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.595679012346 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 531.9 506.74238477 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 5.43587174349 184% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.7299017657 49.4020404114 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.75 106.682146367 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.25 20.7667163134 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.875 7.06120827912 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => 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: 0.0571120409382 0.244688304435 23% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0178405645774 0.084324248473 21% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0290511852895 0.0667982634062 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.035528242219 0.151304729494 23% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0237960157645 0.056905535591 42% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.0946893788 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 50.2224549098 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.4159519038 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.5 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 78.4519038076 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 11.2359550562 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.