Sometimes nature and national economy are strongly interconnected and we cannot save wilderness areas, if it poses significant obstacles to economic growth. Nevertheless, I agree with the statement to the extant that preservation of wilderness areas in their natural state should be under governmental control and its' responsibility in certain cases.
Experience tells us that the natural state of wilderness areas is often essential for preserving the integral ecosystem. Only one road can divide the whole group of species and be a significant obstacle for animals to breed and live where they need. Animals can be scared to cross the highways or railroads in migration seasons or be unable to search the food on another side of the road. Even small human influence can cause significant damage for nature, not to mention the situation, where influence is systematic. Harming nature for economic gain can cause even opposite effect for economy. For example, the case in China, when government allowed everyone to kill sparrows in order to help the agriculture. Lack of sparrows caused massive attack by insects, what in the end was even worse for agriculture. Those, I think that governments should keep the situation under control and issue relevant restrictions, where they are needed.
One must admit as well, that it would be difficult to preserve wilderness in the natural state without financial support and regional development. Nowadays we see what difficulties meet some African countries in protecting their national parks. Poachers will do everything to kill the last rhino for its' horn for economic gain and without financial aid it would be impossible to protect such species. Coming back to above mentioned example with the road, I would concede that sometimes the road can be essential for development of whole region and modern technologies can allow us to build bridges for the animals and to minimize the harmful effect of the economic activity.
Admittedly, humans' needs are unlimited and companies will always seek to maximize their economic gain. If government will give allowance to build one factory, there is a probability that soon there will appear another one. In addition to this, the company will try to minimize the costs on safety measures, what can lead to the pollution or even ecological catastrophe. Moreover, it is hard to predict what can happen on industrial objects. Only one human error or miscalculation can be a reason of an irreversible effect on nature. For instance, Chernobyl or Fukushima nuclear disasters happened only once, but the harmful effect of radiation will influence the nature for decades. The wilderness areas nearby will never be the same.
In the final analysis, the statement's accuracy depends on the context and the region. In some cases nations actually should pass laws to preserve wilderness areas in their natural states, but we need to consider the situation case by case. Sometimes moderate economic activity can be harmless for nature, but bring significant economic gain, what will help the sustainable development and to protect the nature. The key is to strive the optimal balance between economic development and preservation of nature, the balance that varies depending on the conditions of the nature and possible causes of human activities.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 608, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...pposite effect for economy. For example, the case in China, when government allow...
^^
Line 7, column 150, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ernment will give allowance to build one factory, there is a probability that so...
^^
Line 7, column 166, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e allowance to build one factory, there is a probability that soon there will ap...
^^
Line 9, column 28, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'statements'' or 'statement's'?
Suggestion: statements'; statement's
...he same. In the final analysis, the statements accuracy depends on the context and the...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, if, moreover, nevertheless, so, well, for example, for instance, i think, in addition, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 28.0 12.4196629213 225% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 58.6224719101 109% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 12.9106741573 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2809.0 2235.4752809 126% => OK
No of words: 531.0 442.535393258 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29001883239 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80035803286 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83911781012 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 268.0 215.323595506 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504708097928 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 906.3 704.065955056 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.4148941612 60.3974514979 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.36 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.24 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.6 5.21951772744 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.2987043955 0.243740707755 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0875279192298 0.0831039109588 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0652694287919 0.0758088955206 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185965997786 0.150359130593 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0386643057391 0.0667264976115 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.8420337079 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 141.0 100.480337079 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.