In our modern world, citizens argue about different things, especially about those which need a more deep attention and consideration. One of these hot topics of discussion is a question of preservation of nature. To be more accurate, it is better to divide people into two groups: first, which thinks that wild areas should be protected and stay unreachable for humanity for the sake of flora and fauna, and second, which stands for development of these wilderness areas for economic advantages. This essay will look at both sides and at the end decide which position would be more persuasive.
At the first glance, if one thinks about wilderness, he or she will definitely come up with an idea of protection of animals and plants. In other words, to interpret it more simply, people would say that wild places must be uninhabited and stay away from human activities. That is what the word “Wild” really means - not touched by a human. For instance, in China, when tourists started to explore unknown forests and places, their well-known symbols of the country “Pandas” became extinct. Some scientists and environmentalists claim that it was due to human activities and disturbance in the animals’ private life: pandas are too shy to make their offsprings if they feel tension. That’s why the Chinese government preserves wild areas in their natural state.
However, from another perspective, some people defend a position that considers development of such areas, providing arguments that such an action would lead to an inflow of tourists, which afterwards would bring an economic gain. Such a policy was decided to be implemented by officials in the United Arab Emirates when they had been working on a plan for the country’s tourist attraction. In the document it was written that some parts of the wild desert “ Sahara” should be prepared for tourists: water-supply chains must be installed, movable places for rest should be created. Another vivid example of usage of wild areas as a tourist attraction can be seen in Korean Island “Jeju”. The government of the Republic of Korea came to the conclusion several years ago that this place would serve as an ideal place for foreigners to enjoy Korean natural beatiness. Indeed, this plan resulted in a one hundred thousands of tourists who visit this island every year. What’s more, this place serves as a squad for shooting Korean dramas which are widespread around the world nowadays.
In sum, even though wild places must be left untouched for the living creatures there, most of the time, it is more effective and prospective to use such potential for economic growth. While some protect this view by giving an example of Pandas in China which need real care, others provide examples of the desert “Sahara” and the Island “Jeju” which brought a maximum of profit. Overall, it seems to be more appropriate to use such natural resources for the benefit of all.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 467, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... some parts of the wild desert “ Sahara” should be prepared for tourists: water-s...
^^
Line 5, column 903, Rule ID: CD_DOZENS_OF[1]
Message: Use a singular form of the numeral here: 'hundred thousand'.
Suggestion: hundred thousand
...ss. Indeed, this plan resulted in a one hundred thousands of tourists who visit this island every ye...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1035, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...es as a squad for shooting Korean dramas which are widespread around the world no...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, look, really, second, so, well, while, as for, for instance, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 11.3162921348 177% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 58.6224719101 106% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2471.0 2235.4752809 111% => OK
No of words: 488.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06352459016 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70007681154 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72521570842 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 275.0 215.323595506 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.563524590164 0.4932671777 114% => OK
syllable_count: 749.7 704.065955056 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.9066480492 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.55 118.986275619 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4 23.4991977007 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.75 5.21951772744 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More 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: 0.331450125366 0.243740707755 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.090976902317 0.0831039109588 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0769298694997 0.0758088955206 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.205735276613 0.150359130593 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0716008241257 0.0667264976115 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.1392134831 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.8420337079 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.1639044944 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.9 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 100.480337079 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.