News report
KFC’s Fighting for the Last Domain
“KFC is taking the leading role of China’s fast food industry”, quoted CBN. Statistics have shown that, by the year of 2004, Captain Sanders has defeated McDonald’s by opening chain stores twice as rapidly as its main opponent. After the operation of KFC’s latest branch in Sanya Hainan, the total amount of fast-food restaurants of KFC has overwhelmingly reached 1200 in China. Only in the coastal city Shanghai in 2004, the number of KFC’s shops had hit 143 with 35 new operations, whereas McDonald’s had pathetically added merely 4 new chain stores.
This is an absolute triumph for KFC and the trophy for the victor is the total turnover by 2004 of 6 billion RMB and the favor of 1.2 billion Chinese people. Considering such a colossal cake of China’s fast food market with few domestic competitors, McDonald’s doubtlessly will fight KFC as drastically as it can till the last standing man. So will the other fast food tycoons such as Burger King, which has recently landed in China, plunging into the strife.
However, competition between Cpt. Sanders and Uncle McDonald has never been so incandesced, for Mr. Sanders was always a loser. Providing a tour around Europe and America, it will be convenient for you to notice that McDonald’s and Burger King have ruthlessly occupied almost all the airports, department stores and downtown areas, leaving no room for newcomers. In a nutshell, KFC in those two continents is no match for McDonald’s.
Nevertheless, in 1990s a glimpse of hope from China, a then virgin land for fast food industry, illuminated the head of KFC. It decisively made for China, exceeding its rivals and, as a result, the past decade manifested that this decision was utterly excellent.
It is believed that there are three main reasons leading to the success of KFC in China. First and foremost, KFC just picked the best timing. When KFC invaded China’s food market, it was right the crackle of China’s economy and the people were thirsty for foreign products. Thereby, it should be no wonder why KFC grew so rapidly in China. Second, the strategy for material selection. As we all know, the chief meat used in KFC’s snacks is chicken, not beef or steak that are widely used in McDonald’s. Chicken is milder and softer than beef and steak, therefore fitter to Chinese digestive system and dietetic traditions. Last but not least, KFC has managed to accommodate itself to Chinese culture vice versa. It applies Chinese traditional recipe to western cooking method, herefrom presenting authentic Chinese-savored food like Spicy Diced Chicke inspired from Sichuan, Egg Tart from Macao, and Dragon Twister from Peking.
To conclude, KFC’s marvelous victory in China is another business miracle owing to fine business skill and foresight. Humorously, some Chinese attribute the success to the wise choice of the mascot, that is, a more sophisticated image of a fatherly white-bearded rather than a ludicrous clown.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-07-15 | ayumiyazaki | 56 | view |
| 2019-04-23 | kuldeep sharma | 100 | view |
- dinosaurs 80
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Teachers should give primary school students aged5 10 no more than 30 minutes homework because they ve already got enough instructions from school in the days 60
- franchise 3
- Do you agree or disagree Educating young people about healthy food is important and should not be the job of family alone It should also be the responsibility of schools to teacher their students about healthy learning 80
- Smart cars 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 15, Rule ID: IN_1990s[1]
Message: The article is probably missing here: 'in the 1990s'.
Suggestion: in the 1990s
...no match for McDonald’s. Nevertheless, in 1990s a glimpse of hope from China, a then vi...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, then, therefore, whereas, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 41.998997996 129% => OK
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: 2523.0 1615.20841683 156% => OK
No of words: 492.0 315.596192385 156% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12804878049 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70967865282 4.20363070211 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76671561276 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 298.0 176.041082164 169% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.605691056911 0.561755894193 108% => OK
syllable_count: 726.3 506.74238477 143% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 7.0 2.52805611222 277% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 16.0721442886 149% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.1557398756 49.4020404114 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.125 106.682146367 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5 20.7667163134 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.04166666667 7.06120827912 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 7.0 4.38176352705 160% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.9879759519 201% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 3.4128256513 205% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.244688304435 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.084324248473 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0667982634062 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.151304729494 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.056905535591 0% => 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: 13.0 13.0946893788 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 50.2224549098 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.4159519038 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.38 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 148.0 78.4519038076 189% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.78957915832 138% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum five paragraphs wanted.
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: 0.67 Out of 6
---------------------
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.