Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.
The stated policy tends to converge towards an extreme end by introducing the concept of total preservation of wilderness even if that entailed opportunity economic costs and future gains. The policy does not consider some relevant points that would render it inadequate when extended to some precise assumptions and conditions.
Every Nation is endowed with a set of natural resources that help it have a comparative advantage in the international trading context. Usually exploiting natural resources requires a certain sacrifice of wild environments. Land for agriculture needs for cutting down trees, the establishment of cities to meet a surge in population density needs for operations of sanification of natural dumps. Facing such problems needs and adequate evaluation of all the possible resources that a country has and finding an optimal condition when deciding to sacrifice some wilderness. A further example may be the discovery of ultra large reserves of oil in desertic places. If Middle Eastern countries had not digged those natural reserves, they would have never seen such exponential economic growth.
Additionally, legislation on the protection of wilderness is usually correlated to a wider objective of protecting animal and plant life, but sometimes, wild places may not be favorable for life to establish itself there naturally. What if the wild place taken in consideration results in being a bubble of sulfur and toxic substances that would endanger life in the nearby zones and cities?
Furthermore, some countries may need the right to exploit their natural resources because their economies have been lagging behind for years. The same Middle-Eastern countries find themselves in having specialized economies where the only resources available in abundance are gas and oil. African countries find themselves poor in manufacturing and tertiary sectors and can only rely on natural resources such as gas and mining. Imposing a full protection of wilderness in this case can be detrimental for economic benefits and the general well being of individuals that still face extreme poverty and unemployment.
On the other hand, some isolated, wild places may be needed for scientific experiments that are fundamental for technological innovation and future benefits of a country in terms of productivity. Many regions in Siberia and in the United States are used for nuclear testing that may prove essential for developments in nuclear physsation and discoveries in productions of clean nuclear energy. A country may want to consider this aspect when imposing a law that completely limits usage of wilderness within its territory.
It should also be considered that there may be instances in which a law that protects wilderness and the achievement of economic benefits can coexist. These same wild locations can become natural parks protected by the government and opened to tourists. Safaris in Africa have created job opportunities for the local communities and protected the wonders of the desert.
In conclusion, the policy proposed appeared to be too rigid. On one hand, indiscriminate preservation of remaining wilderness may not entail right off the bat benefits because some of the remaining wild places can be better used without seriously endanger them in the process. In this way a government could be better off investing in mechanisms that protect these regions by keeping them open to possible forms of usage in order to achieve precise objectives, such as scientific research, development of local communities, international trading advantage. In fact protection and economic benefits may not exclude each other and can be part of a plan of sustainable development.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 71, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'has'?
Suggestion: has
...a set of natural resources that help it have a comparative advantage in the internat...
^^^^
Line 3, column 139, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ive of protecting animal and plant life, but sometimes, wild places may not be fa...
^^
Line 7, column 178, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...tail right off the bat benefits because some of the remaining wild places can be better use...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, if, may, so, still, well, in conclusion, in fact, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 14.8657303371 148% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 76.0 58.6224719101 130% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3141.0 2235.4752809 141% => OK
No of words: 576.0 442.535393258 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.453125 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89897948557 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05689236461 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 298.0 215.323595506 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.517361111111 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 1008.9 704.065955056 143% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.8634719283 60.3974514979 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.875 118.986275619 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 23.4991977007 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.16666666667 5.21951772744 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 4.97078651685 141% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
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: 0.235416974767 0.243740707755 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0639773706375 0.0831039109588 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.043553676916 0.0758088955206 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113148315172 0.150359130593 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0294629826033 0.0667264976115 44% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 14.1392134831 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 48.8420337079 62% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.63 12.1639044944 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.49 8.38706741573 113% => OK
difficult_words: 170.0 100.480337079 169% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.