"Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches. Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will raise money for replenishing the sand. Replenishing the sand, as was done to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia, will help protect buildings along our shores, thereby reducing these buildings' risk of additional damage from severe storms. And since beaches and buildings in the area will be preserved, Tria's tourist industry will improve over the long term."
While in this letter sent to the head of the tourism bureau on that island, suggests issues on the island of Tria, such as erosion of beach along the shores and presents some solutions, it is possible to find flaws in the letter. And there remain some questions that should be answered before taking any further step.
First among these questions is: are the people responsible for the erosion of beach sand? This is a very important question that should be discussed between specialists that could put down the affirmation of the letter’s writer about the crew being charging in order to stop the erosion. In fact, when a place is overloaded with visitors, damages on the site can happen. But it seems natural to think that only natural phenomena can cause massive damages, as erosion cited in the letter, through rain or sea’s phenomena.
Second, it is important to clarify how much they will charge from people who are using the beach. It is predictable that people do not like to spend money more than necessary and if they are charged too much, people may lose their interest in visiting this beach. Consequently, if the erosion continues happening, and there are no people to charge from, there is no money to invest in ways to save the beach shores.
The last and not least important reflection is about replenishing the sand on the coast of the beach. This act could be one of the solutions but it is important to have studies about it to see if replenish the littoral is enough action to control the erosion. Likewise, these studies have to be made by specialists such as biologists, climatologists, oceanographer or others in this genre, to confirm that sand erosion does not have any other cause besides the using of people.
In conclusion, the letter’s writer and the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria would be better served to answer and evaluating these questions before taking any action and prejudices the coast more than ever.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 341 350
No. of Characters: 1583 1500
No. of Different Words: 168 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.297 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.642 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.43 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 106 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 68 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 44 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 31 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.231 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.242 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.769 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.358 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.633 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.066 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 14, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[3]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'not the least'.
Suggestion: not the least
... save the beach shores. The last and not least important reflection is about replenish...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, consequently, first, if, likewise, may, second, so, while, in conclusion, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 16.3942115768 18% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1647.0 2260.96107784 73% => OK
No of words: 341.0 441.139720559 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.82991202346 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29722995808 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59768766088 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.519061583578 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 505.8 705.55239521 72% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => 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: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.3646604247 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.692307692 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.2307692308 23.324526521 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 5.70786347227 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.226196967535 0.218282227539 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0777680861007 0.0743258471296 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0494149625532 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115548402918 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0399404124195 0.0628817314937 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.3550499002 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.03 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 98.500998004 67% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.