It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments such as the south pole. Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?
It is an irrefutable fact that with the proliferation of technology and the advent of durable materials, solitary and remote regions on Earth can be accessible for scientific researchers and thrill seekers from all over the world. Although, the exploration journeys might be costly and dangerous, the benefits can be justifiable for the downsides.
There are several reasons why these journeys could have negative impacts. Firstly, the expenditure for explorations is exorbitantly expensive. In order to construct research facilities, it would cost millions of dollars in addition to operation and personnel spending, which ought to be used for the enhancement of education and infrastructure of the country. Secondly, unpredictable dangers from natural events could threaten lives of scientists and tourists alike such as an avalanche and collapsed iceberg.
In spite of aforementioned drawbacks, travelling to solitary natural habitats can bring enormous advantages. It can be seen that scientific researches from environmental specialists in remote areas contribute significantly to the preservation of natural habitats worldwide. For example, statistics provided from the melting level in the south pole can be a prime sample for global warming magnitude. Moreover, thrill seekers could observe the beauty of remote nature, raising their awareness of environmental protection projects. There are some tourists deciding to become advocates or even environment activists, supporting the progress of natural conservation.
In conclusion, the advantages of traveling to solitary areas could be conspicuous. However, to safeguard tourists and scientists from unexpected endangerments, there is the need for precautious and accurate predictions prior to carrying out the expedition.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 259, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s prior to carrying out the expedition.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, for example, in addition, in conclusion, such as, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 7.0 24.0651302605 29% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 41.998997996 81% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1538.0 1615.20841683 95% => OK
No of words: 256.0 315.596192385 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.0078125 5.12529762239 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 4.20363070211 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.32910600272 2.80592935109 119% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 176.041082164 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.6171875 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 476.1 506.74238477 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.3865109082 49.4020404114 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.307692308 106.682146367 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6923076923 20.7667163134 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.76923076923 7.06120827912 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.203271114856 0.244688304435 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0688379794085 0.084324248473 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0396119964708 0.0667982634062 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119138626098 0.151304729494 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0451483281438 0.056905535591 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 13.0946893788 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 26.81 50.2224549098 53% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.58 12.4159519038 142% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.87 8.58950901804 127% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 78.4519038076 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 9.78957915832 133% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.