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.
The topic we are given is easily debatable one. It cites weather nation's government should preserve its wilderness areas in their natural state or those areas should be developed for potential economic gain. I strongly agree with the claim that wilderness areas should be preserved by a nation's government in their natural state.
In the current century, we are living in a world with the constant threat of pollution, increasing global warming and climate change. All those above problems are just because of the demolition of wilderness areas to build factories and sky kissing buildings. In the present situation if we still don't stop damaging our environment this world will soon become unsuitable to live. When people are not able to live what will they do with economically developed society.
Considering the claim that wilderness areas should be developed for potential economic gain if we start demolishing them this will cause severe environmental damage which is no way comparable to the economic gain obtained from those areas. Though that nation may get some economic benefits in return it will leave an unimpairable environmental damage which leaves that as an inhabitable place due to increased pollution from the factories built and climate change. Not only that will damage that particular country indirectly it will leave a bad impact on the entire world and not only human all the species of our environment will get affected due to this. For example, the whales in Antarctica are gradually decreasing due to climate change and increased water pollution. Here we can see the activities in one part of the world is affecting the other part and damaging the entire world as a whole.
In conclusion, converting the wilderness areas into factories for potential economic gain will never help in a longer run. It will cause nothing but the damages to our world.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 66, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'nations'' or 'nation's'?
Suggestion: nations'; nation's
... easily debatable one. It cites weather nations government should preserve its wilderne...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 288, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'nations'' or 'nation's'?
Suggestion: nations'; nation's
...lderness areas should be preserved by a nations government in their natural state. I...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 298, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...s. In the present situation if we still dont stop damaging our environment this worl...
^^^^
Line 3, column 381, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “When” 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.
...ld will soon become unsuitable to live. When people are not able to live what will t...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, may, so, still, as to, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 58.6224719101 56% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1577.0 2235.4752809 71% => OK
No of words: 308.0 442.535393258 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12012987013 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.55969084622 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71537874904 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 215.323595506 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.538961038961 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 502.2 704.065955056 71% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.2370786517 69% => 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: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.9989134433 60.3974514979 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.642857143 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 23.4991977007 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.14285714286 5.21951772744 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.303810732089 0.243740707755 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.115715552854 0.0831039109588 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.161634913598 0.0758088955206 213% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.211802815879 0.150359130593 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.170555391993 0.0667264976115 256% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.1392134831 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.1639044944 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.16 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 100.480337079 67% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => 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: 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.