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.
The statement affirms that worldwide nations might create laws in order to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their original state, even if these are useful lands, in other words, economic valuables. Although this affirmation seems very healthful for Earth’s enviroment we need to evaluate further aspects which could ruin these actions.
In the first place, nations – primarily most developed ones – are not sympathetic anymore with this type of “green action”. A good example is the US and China, who in the last years, as an historical fact, are off from the Paris Agreement, which deals with emission reduction. Also lasts financial crisis helped another countries to also sacrificing theirs agreements for greenhouse emissions in order to reestablish their economy, as Russia and India.
Furthermore, the global population is in constant growing and stop every further expansion of cultivable lands could be very dangerous. Nowadays we already have a big issue with starvation around the world, approximately 1 billion people doesn’t have enough food in theirs homes. A program to incite wilderness areas which are economic viable to be transformed in lands to feed the poor could be a more reasonable action compared with the proposed by the text.
Moreover, protecting remaining wilderness area are not the same with protecting animals or plants in danger of extinction. The proposed law is poorly developed and very narrow generalizing all this areas. More specific laws might be created even using this lands. For example, a best solution could be changing area already used but in regions like rainforest with a rich fauna and flora to wild areas which are proved to be less harmful to the nature or, as well as, to make a deep study of these remaining areas in order to really found which one are located in sensible areas and which ones are note, forbidding a small number of places.
In summary, the brief statement is very restrictive when it talks about the preservation of all remaining wild areas in the world. There are a lot of profs that this type of radical action are useless, even the well developed ones are being reject by nations because of recent economic issues. Likewise, the constant population growth is another limiting factor, we cannot stop any expansion of cultivable field nowadays and at least the simplicity of the proposed solution doesn’t talk deep enough with really endanger areas, more specific laws could be created to protect its areas without harming the economic development of countries and effectively saving animals and plants in danger.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 287, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...t, which deals with emission reduction. Also lasts financial crisis helped another c...
^^^^
Line 4, column 193, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...eloped and very narrow generalizing all this areas. More specific laws might be crea...
^^^^
Line 4, column 277, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[1]
Message: Use 'the' with the superlative.
Suggestion: the
...ted even using this lands. For example, a best solution could be changing area al...
^
Line 4, column 615, Rule ID: SMALL_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, use 'a few', or use 'some'
Suggestion: a few; some
...eas and which ones are note, forbidding a small number of places. In summary, the brief statemen...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, if, likewise, moreover, really, so, well, at least, for example, in summary, as well as, in other words, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 33.0505617978 61% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 58.6224719101 97% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2205.0 2235.4752809 99% => OK
No of words: 424.0 442.535393258 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20047169811 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53775939005 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72783369603 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547169811321 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 694.8 704.065955056 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 6.24550561798 16% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => 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: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 91.4406668587 60.3974514979 151% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.0 118.986275619 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.2666666667 23.4991977007 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.2666666667 5.21951772744 197% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.309820816181 0.243740707755 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100072971722 0.0831039109588 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0710189391585 0.0758088955206 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.179700622341 0.150359130593 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0738542490608 0.0667264976115 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 14.1392134831 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.8420337079 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.23 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 100.480337079 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => 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.