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

Essay topics:

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 claim states that even though some areas can be developed for economic gain, nations should pass laws to preserve those wilderness areas in their natural state. Unarguably, some forest lands need to be eradicated in order to meet demands of increasing population. I, nonetheless, believe that getting rid of forest lands just to accommodate people is unethical. Hence, I strongly agree with the statement that nations all across the globe should enforce policies to preserve the remaining wilderness.

First, I would like to point out that forests are natural shelter for various living organisms on the planet. The flora and fauna of these forest lands contribute to the perfect balance of ecosystem among the creatures of our planet. Disturbing this ecosystem by destruction of the forests will pose some serious threats to the existence of animals or trees hosted by the wilderness. As we all know, the number of species that are already on the verge of extinction is quite considerable. Demolishing forests for humans’ selfish needs will push already endangered species to extinction. Another major consequence is that the availability of the most vital element for every living being’s sustenance – Oxygen will be adversely affected. Plants are our primary sources of Oxygen. The interdependence between plants and other organisms will get disturbed. Clearly, the nation should take a step towards avoiding such a terrifying result in the future.

Admittedly, there is some credibility in the fact that wilderness should be recycled to develop infrastructure for economic gain. After all, population on the planet has only been observed to be ever increasing. To meet the demands of such growing population such as new roads, houses, supermarkets and what not, some people might view demolishing forests as a viable option. If only they realize the consequences of such a formidable act, like the ones that have already been in play like global warming, polar ice caps melting and ozone layer depletion, they would appreciate the advantages of having these forest lands around. Steps taken towards expanding habitable land a few centuries ago for growing population, is affecting its subsequent generations in the form of the above-mentioned calamities. Obviously, killing wilderness is not the way to fit in the growing population.

To illustrate how our present actions might hurt generations to come, let us retrospect a bit. Indisputably, a few centuries ago, the planet was replete with greenery. Previous generations probably thought that they were doing us a favor by getting rid of forests and laying roads and houses for us. Little did they know that it has put our planet on the path of extinction. Melting polar ice caps have caused floods, global warming has increased temperatures of few areas of the planet significantly and a hole in the ozone layer has brought about skin cancer. All of these terrifying calamities could have been avoided just by realizing the benefit of having around, the forests, natural protector of mankind.

In conclusion, for all the indirect help we receive from our mother nature like oxygen, water, wood to name just a few, it is high time we paid tribute to the planet at least by maintaining what is left of it. In order to steer clear of all the aforementioned disasters like global warming, ozone layer depletion and polar ice caps melting, essentially saving planet earth and thus saving ourselves, it is necessary for nations to take more stringent actions. Passing laws to preserve wilderness areas is the best way to ensure it.

Votes
Average: 8.3 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, if, nonetheless, so, thus, after all, at least, in conclusion, such as

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 82.0 58.6224719101 140% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3029.0 2235.4752809 135% => OK
No of words: 583.0 442.535393258 132% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19554030875 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.91379618374 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8680312175 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 310.0 215.323595506 144% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531732418525 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 945.9 704.065955056 134% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.3391608177 60.3974514979 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.178571429 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8214285714 23.4991977007 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.17857142857 5.21951772744 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => 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: 0.226504107631 0.243740707755 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.059551897812 0.0831039109588 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.098874137726 0.0758088955206 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.139707837689 0.150359130593 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0984470253164 0.0667264976115 148% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.1392134831 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.1639044944 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 153.0 100.480337079 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.