The statement with regards to regulators and policymakers responding to potential environmental threats even before conclusion information is full known is a compelling one. It is a statement that I can agree with, although not without reservations because not all potential environmental threats can be treated the equally.
Precautionary actions should be taken to protect against environmental threats when human lives are at stake. For example, although no geologists can accurately and conclusively determine when the next earthquake or tsunami will occur, policymakers in countries like Japan and America are take the necessary steps to safeguard the lives of their citizens. Houses are built to be earthquake-proof in accordance to stringent construction rules and sea barriers are constructed along the coastlines of Japan. If no preventive measures were taken, a repeat of the Fukushima nuclear disaster caused by earthquake and tsunami could be in the making.
Furthermore, responding to potential environmental threats could also help ensure that the quality of living for everyone on Earth. Policy makers back in the 2000s banned the industrial usage of CFCs because preliminary studies at that time showed that CFC has the potential to destroy the ozone layer. In fact, in a smack to the face to companies worldwide, it was proven later that there was in fact a 'hole' in the ozone layer up in the North Pole due to CFC. The effects were reversible and many props to environmental regulators for having the foresight to prevent an environmental catastrophe from happening. Otherwise, living beings on Earth would suffer greatly from the excessive UV radiations reaching the surface of the Earth.
However, not all potential environmental threats should be given the same weightage and treated in same light as others. It is not always as clear cut as to what potential environmental issues should policy makers respond to. For example, in Indonesia the surrounding mountainous lands near volcanos are very fertile and suitable for farming. If the government imposed laws that forbid anyone to live close to the volcano because of potential danger posed by a volcano eruption, it could lead to lost farming opportunities and severely impact the local economy of the region. Instead, a wiser alternative would be to study the impact of such laws if enacted and regulators should weigh between the pros and cons of such option. Solid data and conclusive evidences would be needed to make an informed choice.
In conclusion, we can see that in most cases, regulators and policymakers having the prescience to take precautionary action against potential environmental threats could serve humans well. However said, some times things are not a straightforward as it seem and it would be wiser for information to be fully gathered and known before making a decision. Therefore, the accuracy and validity of the statement is limited.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 191, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...mental threats could serve humans well. However said, some times things are not a strai...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 255, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'seems'?
Suggestion: seems
... things are not a straightforward as it seem and it would be wiser for information t...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'therefore', 'well', 'as to', 'for example', 'in conclusion', 'in fact', 'in most cases']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.256461232604 0.240241500013 107% => OK
Verbs: 0.157057654076 0.157235817809 100% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0934393638171 0.0880659088768 106% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0477137176938 0.0497285424764 96% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0178926441352 0.0444667217837 40% => OK
Prepositions: 0.133200795229 0.12292977631 108% => OK
Participles: 0.051689860835 0.0406280797675 127% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.05910816686 2.79330140395 110% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0437375745527 0.030933414821 141% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0994035785288 0.0997080785238 100% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0337972166998 0.0249443105267 135% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00596421471173 0.0148568991511 40% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2944.0 2732.02544248 108% => OK
No of words: 467.0 452.878318584 103% => OK
Chars per words: 6.30406852248 6.0361032391 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64867537961 4.58838876751 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.402569593148 0.366273622748 110% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.310492505353 0.280924506359 111% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.218415417559 0.200843997647 109% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.173447537473 0.132149295362 131% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05910816686 2.79330140395 110% => OK
Unique words: 253.0 219.290929204 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.541755888651 0.48968727796 111% => OK
Word variations: 64.6575589026 55.4138127331 117% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6194690265 97% => OK
Sentence length: 23.35 23.380412469 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.286574131 59.4972553346 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.2 141.124799967 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.35 23.380412469 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.6 0.674092028746 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.21349557522 38% => OK
Readability: 54.3992505353 51.4728631049 106% => OK
Elegance: 1.98214285714 1.64882698954 120% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.456485016866 0.391690518653 117% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.108439474689 0.123202303941 88% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.073566962323 0.077325440228 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.544326363614 0.547984918172 99% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.129288897206 0.149214159877 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.18750673711 0.161403998019 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0842974830691 0.0892212321368 94% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.367283327731 0.385218514788 95% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.110973495855 0.0692045440612 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.320874588645 0.275328986314 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0427265085795 0.0653680567796 65% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.4325221239 48% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 5.30420353982 226% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88274336283 61% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 7.22455752212 69% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 3.66592920354 191% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.70907079646 37% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 13.5995575221 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.