Nowadays, food travels thousands of miles before reaching consumers. It affects the agriculture and economy of the destination country, and, for this reason, people should prefer food produced by local farmers. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include examples from your experience.

Answer:

In today’s time, food is imported from other countries (Import is obviously from other countries. No need to write this.) for eating. Irrefutably, this practice effects affects the agriculture and economy of the destination country (1) (What is the nature of impact? Is it positive or regative?). To avoid this issue (2) whether people should prefer locally produced foods as it brings better standard of living and reduce quantity of wastage or not has become matter of debate among masses. I completely agree the former view.

1. Import includes the word destination in this context. It is better to write the first two sentences as one. These days, the import of food adversely affects the local agriculture and economy. I believe that people should consume local food only because it fetches local farmers attractive prices for their produce and prevents the movement of a country’s wealth to other countries.

2. Views of different people are not asked in the question. It asks for your views only. Do you agree or disagree? This tantamounts to loss of TR. See point 1 above.

The primary reason (for what?) for eating locally produced food is that it provides (the right placement of words.) tax benefits to people on for eating locally produced food by farmers. As they will (Maintain the same tense – Simple Present.) start consuming locally produced food, the government does not have to pay a plethora of money to foreign countries to buy organic food. Owing to which, this, (3) they will (they can’t refer to plural noun government.) it does not impose heavy groceries grocery taxes on localities and, thus, the (4) money saved from these will be is used to build up a strong economy of the country. (5) For example, when Nepal, (wrong punctuation) stopped ordering onions from Pakistan and started using their own cultivated onion, (need a punctuation) its prices of it went very down crashed and because of this GDP rate of country grown grew by 1.1 percent in the financial year 2018-2019. (6)

3. WHICH is a weaker cohesive device than THIS. Its impact is limited to the sentence in which it is used. If you want to refer to the previous sentence, prefer THIS or IT.

4. THE is sufficient for reference in this case. No need of THESE. the money saved = money saved by not imposing grocery taxes.

5. There seems to be a logic problem in your argument. This will cost you bands in TR and coherence. If the government does not impose taxes, it will lose tax revenue. How will it make the economy stronger? The reader fails to grasp the message.

6. Note that in the construction “When X, Y”, X is a complete idea and so is Y. X and Y are in cause effect relationship. Do not put comma at the wrong place. It will impact your GR bands.

The secondary (= less important. LR issue.) second reason is saving agricultural (LR issue.) food produced by local farmers that ends up as a wastage on eating food that is imported from abroad. (7) Once people start eating localized food, (They eat local food even when the food is imported. Build a better context. – 8) the chances of wastage food wastage become less as the majority of produced food (why repeat? – 8) is readily consumed (obviously by them.)eaten by them. Practicing this habit helps (How can a country practice?) country to utilize abundant of local food and moreover (wrong use of moreover. Moreover plays a role similar to and and also.) helps famers to save their land that is used for dumping waste food. (Bad sentence structuring.) For instance, importing oranges from Sri Lanka in 2018 resulted in a huge loss for Bangladeshi farmers as 1000 hectares of their valuable land was used to dump 5000 tons of oranges which was were of no use for them as there was no demand of local oranges.

7. This is a badly structured sentence. You have 2 ideas – eating imported food; local food is wasted. There is a CAUSE and EFFECT relationship between the two caluses. When people eat imported food, the commodities produced by local farmers are not consumed and they (= the commodities) are wasted.

8. If they abandon the food from other countries, the native food gains precedence and its wastage is reduced.

In conclusion, although imported food sounds beneficial for health, it results as is extremely costly for receiving countries (import = someone is receiving it. No need of writing this.) and eating locally produced food not only makes citizens wealthy but also helps them to reduce wastage of food.