10 Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state even if these areas could be developed for economic gain

Essay topics:

10. Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.

Due to the advent of industrialization, environmental problems have become more severe with increasing air pollutions and carbon dioxides. Thus, the author claims that nations should enact regulations to preseve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state despite of the economic cost. However, the following essay will argue that this may not always be the case.

Admittedly, the author’s recommendation might hold true under certain circumstances. Mountains and forests have been damaged extensively because of the indiscriminate reclamation. A thightening ozon layer, lack of fussel fuels, and persistent toxic substances in the food chain suggest the significant of imposing new laws to preserve remaining natural resources. Law to protect the wildlife and economic sacrifices are inevitable as selfish people who are not aware of the the adverse effects of diminishing wildlife on the earth’s ecosystem recklessy abuse of nature for their economic gain. In addition, financial cost associated with reforestation, relocation of animals, preserving wild animals’ habitas, and research on combating negative effects of land development would be significanly greater than the cost on protecing ecological system. For example, the Four Major Rivers Restoration Projects in South Korea decreased the oxygen level in the river and caused the deforestation. About $ 17 billion and more expensive measured were required to recover the damages from the developoment. Accordingly, as seen the examples above, it is somewhat credible state that governments should enact laws to protect existing wilderness areas.

However, the author’s assertion is not always be prudent as in some cases, development of wilds lands is necessary. Take African coutnries, for example. Many people in African coutnries still suffer from lack of basic food resources, particularily water shortage. It seems that proper development of areas with wildlife might be a kay to improving the availability of vital resources. As human lives are far more important than ecological conservation, it is inevitable to develop fertile lands to provide people with enough drinking water, regardless how much cost it requires when exploing the lands. In such cases, economic disadvantage could the lesser problem but overshadowed by direct life threatening consequences for the populace. Consequently, implemenation of said recommendation has a potential for devastating effects.

Furthermore, a disagree stance seems more favorable considering the possiblity of imposing envriomental protection laws with economic advantage. Amazon in Brazil would be a compelling example. With the efforts of transformation to a modern industrial coutnry, Amazon’s Rainforest was over-exploited, hampered ecological chains and caused substantial environmental issues. With cooperative effort of government and numerous international and local NGOs, the waters from Amazon are being used with more sustainable means, improving the livelihoods of indigenous tribe living in remote regions, and its waterways have been targeted as a critical power supply for multitude of eco-friendly hydroelectric dams. Hence, it is plausible to disagree that safeguarding wild lives comes with economic losses.

In conclusion, all things considered, the idea that nations should create laws to conserve natural environment is partially plausible as discussed above. Since people’s quallity of lives overrides the importance of prtecting the earth, a disagreeing stance is more plausible.

Votes
Average: 8.3 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 471, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
... as selfish people who are not aware of the the adverse effects of diminishing wildlife...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 471, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
... as selfish people who are not aware of the the adverse effects of diminishing wildlife...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 997, Rule ID: CURRENCY_SPACE[1]
Message: The currency mark is usually written without any whitespace: '$17'.
Suggestion: $17
...ver and caused the deforestation. About $ 17 billion and more expensive measured wer...
^^^^
Line 7, column 14, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...r devastating effects. Furthermore, a disagree stance seems more favorable considering...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 765, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lives'' or 'life's'?
Suggestion: lives'; life's
...ible to disagree that safeguarding wild lives comes with economic losses. In conc...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 277, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...a disagreeing stance is more plausible.
^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, consequently, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, so, still, thus, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in some cases

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 33.0505617978 45% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 58.6224719101 118% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3038.0 2235.4752809 136% => OK
No of words: 512.0 442.535393258 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.93359375 5.05705443957 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75682846001 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.26163907632 2.79657885939 117% => OK
Unique words: 310.0 215.323595506 144% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60546875 0.4932671777 123% => OK
syllable_count: 959.4 704.065955056 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.59117977528 119% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.9225507817 60.3974514979 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.52 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.48 23.4991977007 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.64 5.21951772744 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.267778531096 0.243740707755 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0619109536469 0.0831039109588 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0774579977074 0.0758088955206 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141978555808 0.150359130593 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0671384751619 0.0667264976115 101% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.1392134831 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 25.8 48.8420337079 53% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.11 12.1639044944 141% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.58 8.38706741573 126% => OK
difficult_words: 193.0 100.480337079 192% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.7820224719 144% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.