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 debate regarding protection of wilderness has been heated over the decades, and the importance of natural ecology has been the focus of environmentalists. Although I admit the value of wild nature, I cannot fully agree with the statement, as it does not acknowledge any exception when remaining wilderness areas have to be developed for economic gain.
To begin with, the statement ignores unequally developed world map by prioritizing the importance of wilderness, which surely would get attention from the majority of people. It should be pointed out that the less developed countries have the wider areas of wilderness, whereas the more developed and wealthy countries have less. In other words, if the less and under developed countries pass laws to protect any remaining wild nature, they would be depraved of an opportunity for an economic development. By saying economic development, it does not necessarily mean only profit-oriented factories and fancy department stores. Rather, it means foundational infrastructure the local people can make their living, schools the local students can be educated, and hospitals the community can be benefited from. If such laws were passed, it would take away from them of even a small chance of improving those people’s lives. Therefore, considering unequally developed nations worldwide, passing laws to prevent any further development in remaining wilderness area should be carefully considered.
Moreover, it should be pointed out that the underlying assumption of the given argument is that economic gain and preservation of wilderness cannot stand together. However, it is possible that they can benefit from each other, and even a proper development can protect wild ecology better. Rather than leaving the wild reserve alone under the threat of unlicensed hunters and natural extinction, biologists and wilderness experts may provide better protection. Australia, for example, has a number of reserves where wild animals, such as penguins and koalas live. Because of the environmental change, it is no longer possible for them to survive against extinction without proper help from human beings. Thus, adequate and well thought out preservation could be more beneficial for wild nature.
Of course, some may still argue that the best way of preserve the nature is not involving at all. And the best way of not being involved is to pass laws to regulate any human activities that may impact on wilderness. However, this argument assumes that it is possible to force all countries in the world to pass such laws, and once they do, the laws would prevent any kind of development from harming the environment. Commonsense tells us that this is simply not true. The human history shows that forcing international laws is unbelievably difficult. Even the Children’s Rights United Nations Convention has not been ratified by all nations even after a half century. Then, how can it be possible to encourage all nations to pass laws that may hinder their economic growth?
In conclusion, while the idea of passing laws to keep the remaining wilderness area sounds appealing at a quick glance, it may not be the best way of approaching to the issue. It should be considered with an understanding of an unequally developed world map, the environmental benefit of proper development, and the reality of persuading all nations to ideally work together.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: Rather, it means foundational infrastructure the local people can make their living, schools the local students can be educated, and hospitals the community can be benefited from.
Error: foundational Suggestion: No alternate word
-------------
arguments: OK
-------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 541 350
No. of Characters: 2795 1500
No. of Different Words: 257 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.823 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.166 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.86 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 204 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 162 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 116 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 89 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.542 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.481 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.284 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.483 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.088 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 74, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...hat the best way of preserve the nature is not involving at all. And the best way of not being i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'regarding', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'well', 'whereas', 'while', 'for example', 'in conclusion', 'kind of', 'of course', 'such as', 'in other words', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.205592105263 0.240241500013 86% => OK
Verbs: 0.167763157895 0.157235817809 107% => OK
Adjectives: 0.106907894737 0.0880659088768 121% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0690789473684 0.0497285424764 139% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0361842105263 0.0444667217837 81% => OK
Prepositions: 0.116776315789 0.12292977631 95% => OK
Participles: 0.0608552631579 0.0406280797675 150% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.98097419773 2.79330140395 107% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0230263157895 0.030933414821 74% => OK
Particles: 0.00657894736842 0.0016655270985 395% => OK
Determiners: 0.0970394736842 0.0997080785238 97% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0361842105263 0.0249443105267 145% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00986842105263 0.0148568991511 66% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3416.0 2732.02544248 125% => OK
No of words: 541.0 452.878318584 119% => OK
Chars per words: 6.31423290203 6.0361032391 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82280071112 4.58838876751 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.384473197782 0.366273622748 105% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.325323475046 0.280924506359 116% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.22550831793 0.200843997647 112% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.173752310536 0.132149295362 131% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98097419773 2.79330140395 107% => OK
Unique words: 268.0 219.290929204 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495378927911 0.48968727796 101% => OK
Word variations: 59.4769111665 55.4138127331 107% => OK
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6194690265 116% => OK
Sentence length: 22.5416666667 23.380412469 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.2578279138 59.4972553346 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.333333333 141.124799967 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5416666667 23.380412469 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.833333333333 0.674092028746 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.21349557522 19% => OK
Readability: 55.0740141713 51.4728631049 107% => OK
Elegance: 1.40361445783 1.64882698954 85% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.331987206032 0.391690518653 85% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.110232839357 0.123202303941 89% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.074432966011 0.077325440228 96% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.501575763459 0.547984918172 92% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.155033199575 0.149214159877 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.124733297583 0.161403998019 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.066967152399 0.0892212321368 75% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.40931274238 0.385218514788 106% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.042334673671 0.0692045440612 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.23065656631 0.275328986314 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0446787076109 0.0653680567796 68% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.4325221239 153% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.30420353982 94% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88274336283 61% => OK
Positive topic words: 15.0 7.22455752212 208% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 3.66592920354 109% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.70907079646 74% => OK
Total topic words: 21.0 13.5995575221 154% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.