Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.
Construction companies and building of houses in this modern world have led to the replacement of many wilderness in the society. In response to this, the author concludes that the government should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness in their natural state even if these areas can be developed for economic gain. I mostly disagree with the stance for these following three reasons, however, i do concede that some wilderness can be well structured and be used for recreational purpose.
First of all, every society needs development in construction of modern houses, companies where cheap things can be produced, stadium for sport activities, schools, markets where goods and services take place. These are the things that make up the economic buoyancy of a nation. All these things mentioned above require land. Without land, nothing can be done, hence, there will be low rate of development in the society. If the government decided preserve these areas of wilderness, there will surely be restriction on contructions and growth in the society.
Moreover, if larger of an area is maintained only for wilderness, it can have an inimical effect on the lives of people around those areas. For example, the story of tiger invasion in Elebolo, Nigeria, 1978. This was a terrible event that occured because they refused to destroy the wild animals in those wilderness because they are trying to preserve naturally land. The tigers invaded the town and killed many people. The government had to destroy the wilderness, built a company where tissue paper is produced and till now the company is still functioning.
However, extreme cases should be avoided, whereby there is no preservation wilderness in a country. This shouldn't happen. Government should find a way to give it a structure, make it recreational, at least one, make it an accessible places for people to come and see wild animals without being injured. This will increase the economic growth of the nation.
In conclusion, compare to the contribution of lands used for building different companies, schools to the growth and development of the society, preserving large areas of land for wilderness is not prudent. However few areas can be preserved, well organized to improve the economic growth of the society.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 99, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun wilderness seems to be countable; consider using: 'many wildernesses'.
Suggestion: many wildernesses
...rn world have led to the replacement of many wilderness in the society. In response to this, th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 404, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
...these following three reasons, however, i do concede that some wilderness can be ...
^
Line 3, column 299, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this wilderness' or 'those wildernesses'?
Suggestion: this wilderness; those wildernesses
... refused to destroy the wild animals in those wilderness because they are trying to preserve nat...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 105, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: shouldn't
...servation wilderness in a country. This shouldnt happen. Government should find a way to...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 233, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'place'?
Suggestion: place
...al, at least one, make it an accessible places for people to come and see wild animals...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, if, moreover, so, still, well, at least, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 33.0505617978 76% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 58.6224719101 80% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1917.0 2235.4752809 86% => OK
No of words: 371.0 442.535393258 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16711590296 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38877662729 4.55969084622 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78431308544 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 215.323595506 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.533692722372 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 599.4 704.065955056 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 56.8127116984 60.3974514979 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.894736842 118.986275619 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5263157895 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.73684210526 5.21951772744 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.409347168406 0.243740707755 168% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11534735256 0.0831039109588 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.147943764331 0.0758088955206 195% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.225426512564 0.150359130593 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.130322652285 0.0667264976115 195% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.1392134831 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 100.480337079 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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.