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 actions of the humankind during the past few decades, has by far made this time the worst period for our environment. We have polluted the air, the water and the soil, hunted countless animals, destroyed the ecosystem, and made wildlife impossible in many areas of the world. In short, we have ruined the natures hierarchy, and we have done it for one reason: we thought the progress in economy and industry is worth the sacrifice. But there was a point when some people saw that this is a malfunctioning cycle, and needs to be readjusted somewhere - nations should start paying attention to the environment, and since fixing the ruined jungles and forrests and other natural landscapes will probably take hundreds of years, we should take extra care of the remaining parts.
Having all this in mind, the statement above is making a good point. Many people, from environmental activists to ordinary people who just care about the nature and wild life, would undoubtedly defend this statement and agree that governments should pass laws to preserve the remaining wilderness by any means possible. They would argue that the earth, the mother nature, has nourished us beyound our expectations, while in return we have torn it apart. Since no other organization would have the power to do so, it would logically be the goverments’ responsibility to pass laws to preserve the remaining wilderness, before they are occupied and destroyed by factories or incorporations seeking profit.
But looking deeper down the statement, there are many things that should be defined before passing such rules. For example, there are for sure countries in africa wich can not provide enough food for their people, and have acres of “wilderness areas” preserved, because people are unable to use them properly. in this case, there should be groups of experts studying the area, to define the fine line between the areas that should be preserved, and the areas that could be put to use in order to provide people’s basic needs. The other case, are the national parks, which contrary to public beliefs do have economic gain. So not all economic gains should be considered against preserving the nature.
So, although I believe that nature should be preserved from those who plan to destroy it for economic gain, I think there are expectations to add to the above statement. While the nature should be preserved “natural”, we should understand that the people of “today” should be respected as much as the people of “tomorrow”. Environmental mottos and quotes sound very pleasing when they preach about keeping the nature for the future generations, but they largely forget that we are not providing enough food for the present population. Let’s preserve the natural wilderness areas, but let’s do it correctly
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 310, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'natures'' or 'nature's'?
Suggestion: natures'; nature's
...the world. In short, we have ruined the natures hierarchy, and we have done it for one ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 321, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
...people are unable to use them properly. in this case, there should be groups of ex...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, look, so, while, for example, i think, in short
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 58.6224719101 84% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2397.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 462.0 442.535393258 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18831168831 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63618218583 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98644050378 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 215.323595506 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.534632034632 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 740.7 704.065955056 105% => 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: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 10.0 1.77640449438 563% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => 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: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.3472977235 60.3974514979 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.0 118.986275619 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.1764705882 23.4991977007 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.29411764706 5.21951772744 63% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.33227364568 0.243740707755 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104043242031 0.0831039109588 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0698139964914 0.0758088955206 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.19735238702 0.150359130593 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0806121445581 0.0667264976115 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 14.1392134831 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.84 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 100.480337079 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.