Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
Global warming and other issues related to the enviroment are certainly the most challenging subject of the 21th century. The reduction of the ice amount in the Artict, the floodings and the earthquakes are the main topics of conversation in most congresses. In order to reduce all this demage to our planet, some people think that the government should have a more active role, for example, passing laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state. In my opinion, this could be an effective way to avoid more natural dissasters. Consequently, I strongly agree with the claim for three reasons.
First of all, if there are no laws to preserve the wilderness areas, we will not have those resources for the future. It is now when we, as a society, must take care about the natural resources because tomorrow they could dissapear. For instance, take the case of the Amazonas Jungle. In the last year, its population of trees has reduced by almost a 40 percent. The peope use that wood for the construction business but they do not remplace the trees. Therefore, many floodings have occured in South American countries such as Paraguay and Argentina, because due to this lack of vegatitation, there is nothing which can retain the water. This cause an increase in rivers' level and then, the floodings. A law from the brazilian government can stop this issues, ordering the re-plant of more trees in the Amazonas, in order to keep as virgen as they can.
Second, remaining wilderness areas in their natural state forces us to do a more responsably use of the natural resources. For example, in those countries where recycling is mandatory, it is also true that there is more natural resources in the original state. This is the case of Panama, when a law from 2005 requieres all corporations to use at least 20 percent of recycled materials. As a consequence, the natural forests of Panama still remain being the same according to the anual report of the Panama goverment of 2018.
Third, with this law the posibility of more destruction in our planet reduces dramatically. For instance, in Germany the nuclear energy is now forbbiden. It is well know the cases of Chernobyl and Fukushima. In those nuclear accidents the natural areas were contaminated a lot. With laws like that passed in Germany, those natural dissater could have been avoided.
To conclude, although that using wilderness areas can produce many ecomical profits, it is also true that the resources that we use irresponsibly now will dissapear in the future. For these reasons, nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas to have those resources in the future and to avoid more destruction of our enviroment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 166, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'known'.
Suggestion: known
...ear energy is now forbbiden. It is well know the cases of Chernobyl and Fukushima. I...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, if, second, so, still, then, therefore, third, well, as to, at least, for example, for instance, such as, first of all, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2274.0 2235.4752809 102% => OK
No of words: 458.0 442.535393258 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96506550218 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62611441266 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73891740324 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508733624454 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 723.6 704.065955056 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.5137307156 60.3974514979 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.75 118.986275619 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0833333333 23.4991977007 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.875 5.21951772744 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => 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: 0.210830853133 0.243740707755 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0559346803732 0.0831039109588 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0662388672538 0.0758088955206 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129275340566 0.150359130593 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0450370994129 0.0667264976115 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.1392134831 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.1639044944 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 100.480337079 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.