Some people claim that a nation's government should preserve its wilderness areas in their natural state. Others argue that these areas should be developed for potential economic gain.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
Wilderness is part of nature as much as humans. They are part of a chain that determines the existence of every species. Removing one or more creature disrupts this cycle. Though the effects would not be clear in the very next moment, the consequences build with each passing second to hit the human generation. Consider a forest where the population of both tigers and deer's live. Both these populations are directly proportional to each other. If the population of deer's reduce than the tigers die out with no food. If the population of tigers reduce, the deer's die out with over grazing. This over grazing consequently brings the soil erosion which ends the insect life in that area. The extinction of one population destroyed the surroundings in this case. Though technological advancements are pushing these consequences far enough, it is still good to be wary of the future where the technology could not provide the required protection. And yet sacrificing the present economic and social problems for an effect that is yet to come is not sensible.
Nations never care about its wilderness unless it is in the list of endangered species. The pollution kills thousands of birds and sea creatures and yet the government doesn't even acknowledge these misfortunes. Because these creatures does not lie in the regional borders of the national authority and hence they cannot be held responsible for their state. And yet when a species is that exists in these national borders are listed as an endangered species, they go to unnecessary lengths to ensure their protection. This hypocrisy becomes very evident when a nation declares policies to prevent their endangered animals from going extinct by providing them with sources whose manufacturing wastes are dumped in the ocean, killing millions and endangering even more sea animals.
Most nations spend unfathomable amounts on construction of sanctuaries and wildlife parks for these creatures rather than investing in a nostrum that would put a stop from other creatures from going extinct or endangered. This amounts could have aided in ending many social problems in their nations and bolstered their economy. Consider India where there are more than ten wildlife sanctuaries. It spends more on maintaining these wildlife sanctuaries than on ending unemployment in the country which could have been scotched if the same amount of funds were available.
With the growing population, the need for space and more resources is growing. This notion of preserving land that could have ended homelessness in a small nation and could have provided a short term relief to big nations, for wilderness is baffling. Many protests might raise with this notion and an unrest might begin where people question the priorities of the government.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 447, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...re directly proportional to each other. If the population of deers reduce than the...
^^
Line 2, column 168, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...nd sea creatures and yet the government doesnt even acknowledge these misfortunes. Bec...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, hence, if, second, so, still
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 58.6224719101 90% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2339.0 2235.4752809 105% => OK
No of words: 451.0 442.535393258 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18625277162 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60833598836 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77588319365 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 240.0 215.323595506 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.532150776053 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 716.4 704.065955056 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 55.2712377482 60.3974514979 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.4583333333 118.986275619 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7916666667 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.75 5.21951772744 34% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.178925357716 0.243740707755 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.047237873041 0.0831039109588 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0364317209815 0.0758088955206 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100803559008 0.150359130593 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.021553164158 0.0667264976115 32% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.8420337079 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.84 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 100.480337079 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 11.8971910112 50% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.