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

Essay topics:

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.

This policy about passing laws to preserve nations’ remaining wilderness areas is, in my opinion, too general. Now more than ever, pollution and climate changes are our paramount issues and a policy like this would for sure help our current situation. It is for this reason that I strongly agree with it, but just partly. Here is why.

First, it is necessary to specify which nations should pass these laws. Throughout our globe, different nations are experiencing different situations: while most of the western countries are mostly developed and economically stable, there are many countries in continents such as Africa, Asia and eastern Europe which are going through tough times. While global warming and pollution are problems which concern every country, there could be some nations in which the latter are not the priority.

Thus, implementing this policy could exacerbate some nations going through an economic crisis because of the economic gain they would lose in preserving wilderness areas. Even though developing those wilderness areas would worsen the overall quality of air and life (since it will increase pollution), the economic advantages will represent a more important aspect and will make rescinding this policy worth it. That is why I think that not all of the nations should pass these laws.

On the other hand, I believe that all countries which are not undergoing any kind of crisis, and for which it is not essential to have economical gains from wilderness areas, should pass the already mentioned laws.
Our current situation regarding pollution and temperature raises due to global warming is getting worse exponentially. The more developed a nation becomes, the more it will pollute. Based on scientific studies, the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere is rising of 1 celsius degree every two to three years. If the majority of countries would pass this policy then improvements will be finally tangible: the preserved wilderness areas will consume CO2 and release more oxygen in the atmosphere, contributing in making the Ozone hole smaller and eventually stopping global warming.

In conclusion, I would say that all nations that are not in financial need should be require to preserve the remaining wilderness areas, thus trying to improve our current pollution issues. Nevertheless, for some states undergoing conflicts, political instabilities and financial crises, the economical gain coming from the above mentioned areas would be more important than the environmental benefits.

Votes
Average: 6.6 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 441, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...worth it. That is why I think that not all of the nations should pass these laws. On t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 86, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'required'?
Suggestion: required
...hat are not in financial need should be require to preserve the remaining wilderness ar...
^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 94, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'preserving'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'require' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: preserving
...not in financial need should be require to preserve the remaining wilderness areas, thus tr...
^^^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, nevertheless, regarding, so, then, thus, while, i think, in conclusion, kind of, such as, in my opinion, on the other hand

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 58.6224719101 61% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2138.0 2235.4752809 96% => OK
No of words: 395.0 442.535393258 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.41265822785 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45809453852 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74725657391 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 215.323595506 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.541772151899 0.4932671777 110% => OK
syllable_count: 658.8 704.065955056 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => 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: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.6479736474 60.3974514979 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.764705882 118.986275619 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2352941176 23.4991977007 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.64705882353 5.21951772744 166% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.317210986657 0.243740707755 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100952543233 0.0831039109588 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0653415973764 0.0758088955206 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168899095115 0.150359130593 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.03997183977 0.0667264976115 60% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.1392134831 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.39 12.1639044944 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.89 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 100.480337079 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => 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.