making people to avoid fast foods
Nowadays, the question of whether the government should command or not a higher tax on fast food that has been receiving a great deal of public attention. Because of this kind of these foods cause humans dangerous diseases such as cardiovascular and fatty liver disease. However, this core of this concern is not advantages but what is significant will be the downsides.
There are several reasons why the government should burden with a big tax on junk foods. First, increasing a high tax will make fast foods that are unaffordable to low-income people. This means that they would frequently prepare for their meals at home than buying these foods, which is conducive to them about their finance and health. Second, with a ton of waste from fast foods like plastics pipe, plastics cup, and tissues discharge into the environment excessively, which intensifies global warming. Clearly, by this policy, the government reduces a part of rubbish from these plastics products, the environment will more fresh and less pollution in the future.
On the other hand, some benefits of fast foods bring to people that can not overlook. First, some people who are busy with work and study choose fast foods since they do not have alternatives. This means that those foods help them saving much time to eat ordinary meals without taking a lot of time to cook the dish. Second, in the fast-food industry in developed countries like Singapore, Japan provides a significant economic. The consumption of those foods can contribute boost to the economy of their nation. In conclusion, raising taxes leads to not the best decision to solve this issue. By considering all the cons and pros of fast foods, the government should educate knowledge citizens about healthy knowledge rather than that policy.@camchi
Hi. I would like to give you some feedback about your writing.😁
First of all, your introduction including the general statement and paraphrase viewpoints which makes readers easy to understand. However, I would like to suggest that you should state your specific question which is you completely agree or disagree in the end of your introduction.
For the body paragraph, the examples for your 2nd paragraph which is the government should impose more tax on fast food are logical. However, for the 3rd paragraph, on my own opinion, you use "on the other hand" that means you are going to state a different point of view. But I still read the same point of view that is followed by paragraph 2 and I don't know what is the relevant between imposing more tax on fast food and saving time. If you have spare time, I suggest you can try to read some sample answers that may help you to acquire some better ideas.
Last but not least, your conclusion should writing into the new paragraph and never ever add any new idea into your conclusion. (Ex:government should educate....)
In your summary, you should restate your opinion(I strongly agree/disagree...) and restate 2 reasons (because...) Simple and easy to read.
Hope it would help.😁😁
Your essay is very good . It's very sensible of you to bring economics adduction into your writing . However , there're still things needed to be discussed . As the user before me has pointed out the flaws in the general arrangement , I just want to point out some trivial grammar mistake ." Because of this kind of these foods ..." you need to correct this sentence . In this essay , you used a lot of passive voice but sometimes forget to put the verb in P2 ( Eg : overlook ) . I hope my trivial personal point can somehow help you :<
@camchi
Hi there. Welcome to the forum! I'm a contributor on the site and would love to give a feedback on your writing. I hope this isn't too late - and we would love to have you back here again!
In hindsight, I do not find anything that's immensely wrong with your writing, especially because you have quite a decent grasp of the language already. What I have observed, however, is that you have a tendency to over-extend your sentences to fill the space in your writing. Instead of focusing so much on over-explaining, I heavily recommend that you focus more on trying to analyze the content itself.
When we take a look at the second paragraph, for instance, the second point merely appeared to be a ramble than an actual additional point to the writing. What I suggest is trying to incorporate a more personalized interpretation of details by explaining the impact of these events, rather than focusing solely on what is happening. Having a more forward approach will benefit you in the long-run in constructing relevant content.
thank you so much @Maria
