Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.
Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.
I would like to discuss this prompt from two different levels which are ‘logically’, I agree with the belief that preserving wilderness serves higher value than developing for economic gain, especially under the global warming challenge that all human beings are facing now. However, ‘practically’ I am reserved to the prompt because, without proper complementary measures in place, the policy of hindering people from cultivation of wilderness may actually trigger more illegal development and reversely harm the natural state which I am going to explain further as follows.
First of all, it is well known that one critical reason for global warming comes from over-development of wilderness and empirical evidence is easy to find, such as the contagious forest fire in the Amazon area, which dramatically increased the emission of CO2 and led to a further rise of daily temperature. Therefore, stopping or regulating the development of wilderness is the imperative step to do if we want to save the planet. Specifically, when facing the challenge of sustainability of the planet, I agree that preserving wilderness is much more important than economic development and that is why logically I support the belief of the prompt, as well as the deployment of necessary law or regulation
However, It is common that positive logics may lead to negative outcomes when no proper plans are in place. This is exactly what I want to argue that if only laws are enforced without other supportive policies, then the expected consequences of protecting the natural areas may not follow. For example, if a law is passed to preserve certain wilderness areas while there is still economic value for local people to extract. The potential results are either people turn their development into illegal operations, or they extract the economic value of the areas far faster before the law has been passed. Following these two outcomes, it is not to imagine that the wilderness areas actually won’t be protected by the law. Instead, the area may endure higher risk of over-development compared to no law condition. Hence, with the consideration of unanticipated outcomes that are potentially aroused by the development of the law, I am reserved to the prompt of preserving the natural areas by enforcing laws.
Apart from law considerations, I would support a more comprehensive policy that is to customise the approaches, that truly assist in protecting the balance of the natural areas and the economic development according to the local context, with complementary measures. In other words, the ultimate way to preserve the natural areas is to provide other ways for people to earn their living besides extracting natural resources from the wilderness areas and those complementary measures aim at helping people to make this transition.
In sum, I support the idea of protecting the wilderness area due to the damage that human beings have already done to the earth. However, I am reserved to the policy of applying law directly without any other complementary measures that help people to transit their living styles.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, first, hence, however, if, may, so, still, then, therefore, well, while, apart from, for example, such as, as well as, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 33.0505617978 112% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 58.6224719101 123% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2629.0 2235.4752809 118% => OK
No of words: 501.0 442.535393258 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24750499002 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73107062784 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05033385637 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 240.0 215.323595506 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.479041916168 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 846.9 704.065955056 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => 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: 33.0 23.0359550562 143% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 85.0103261702 60.3974514979 141% => OK
Chars per sentence: 175.266666667 118.986275619 147% => OK
Words per sentence: 33.4 23.4991977007 142% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.0666666667 5.21951772744 212% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.83258426966 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.336910910898 0.243740707755 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.122439511515 0.0831039109588 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0500404568166 0.0758088955206 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.187342045423 0.150359130593 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0506445313884 0.0667264976115 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.0 14.1392134831 141% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.52 48.8420337079 60% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.3 12.1743820225 142% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 100.480337079 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 11.8971910112 168% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.2 11.2143820225 136% => OK
text_standard: 20.0 11.7820224719 170% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.