There is no shortage of opinions regarding if countries should preserve their remaining wilderness areas, what makes this isse a contentious one. While each view on this topic has its merits and weaknesses, I strongly believe that nations has the duty to keep these areas untouched, mainly because of the benefits from preserve biodiversity and contribute to the sustainable development. Furthermore, wilderness areas should be wisely economicaly explored by the tourism industry, what makes the decision to prevent theses areas also an economicaly cogent one.
Firstly, in the 21st century, there is no roon to dirty economic exploitation of any natural resources. Indeed, there is a wolrd call for preservation and investment in clean technologies and production approaches, what makes a decision to preserve natural wild habitats aligned with the world society claim. The biodiversity that some of this areas have can be considered a treasure for researchers on new medicins as well as to biologists. For example, the Brazilian Pantanal forest is an enormous region that keeps the highest number of different kinds of plants and animals of the world. This region is being studied by many researchers that have been found different new medicines along the years.
Secondly, wilderness areas can represent an excelent source of revenues for any country. In fact, truly wild ecossystems have great potential to attract many afficcionates of natural life. The tourism industry has the power to transform a decision to preserve these areas in a highly profitable business model, where the more untouched is a wild forest, the more attractive and profitable it is. For example, some areas of Amazon forest in Brazil are rich of mineral resources, but their explotation by the tourism industry has made these areas profitable enough to make viable to keep them well-preserved.
On the other hand, some may argue that in countries where there is lack of cultivable areas for farming acivities the preservation of wilderness areas should be put in second place. Nevertheless, this argument is totally flawed. For one, the great increase in farming productivity, with use of intense technology in production, has made possible to have big amount of grains even in small areas. Moreover, the countries which do not have enough space for farming activies but vast preserved wilderness areas should take this as comparative advantages and explore the most the tourism and research potential of this areas to differentiate themselves in the globalized world. In this way, it would be best if they just import grains from countries with vast territories and raise money with tourism and researches in their wild forests.
To sum up, for this aforementioned reasons I definitely hold the opinion that nations should prefer to pass laws to preserve wilderness areas than let them be devastated and used to traditional farming activities.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 340, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ty claim. The biodiversity that some of this areas have can be considered a treasure...
^^^^
Line 7, column 359, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'amounted'.
Suggestion: amounted
...oduction, has made possible to have big amount of grains even in small areas. Moreover...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 611, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...t the tourism and research potential of this areas to differentiate themselves in th...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, second, secondly, so, well, while, as for, as to, for example, in fact, as well as, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 58.6224719101 104% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2471.0 2235.4752809 111% => OK
No of words: 465.0 442.535393258 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31397849462 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64369019777 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92988161307 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 215.323595506 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520430107527 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 775.8 704.065955056 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.2446557967 60.3974514979 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.277777778 118.986275619 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8333333333 23.4991977007 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.8888888889 5.21951772744 209% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.310612463141 0.243740707755 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0995276014471 0.0831039109588 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.063598627616 0.0758088955206 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.187094996727 0.150359130593 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0289790955639 0.0667264976115 43% => 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: 16.5 14.1392134831 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.8420337079 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.1639044944 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 100.480337079 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => 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.