Some people believe that to protect local culture, tourism should be banned in some areas whereas others think that change is inevitable and banning tourism will have no benefits.
Discuss both sides and give your opinion.
Over the last few decades, nations have witnessed an overwhelming visit of tourists. Rather many places are known as tourist places. But people believe that tourism should be banned as it intrudes the culture, whereas, other school of thought believes that it helps in economic up-swing of particular nation. Although, I strongly favour later part of this group, but this essay will discuss both point of views.
Nowadays, economic expansion to tourism plays major role in developing countries. Developing countries are investing and taking effort in maintaining places where they can be profitable and make a remarkable increase in Gross Domestic Product of the Country through tourism sector. Furthermore, one needs to accept cultural differences as this sector boosts inflow of foreign currency and economic efficiency. Moreover, employment demands will also be fulfilled which the utmost necessity of any developing nation. For instance, the major source of income of Andaman and Nicobar islands is from tourism business.
Considering the view point of former group, the locals get affected by the cultural and gaucheness which tourists brings along with them. Youth of the country adapts these foreign culture quickly. Foreign culture has always been hegemony over youth. Being abjure about this thought, government can put some rules and restrictions to maintain the ethics of thier nation. For instance, foreigners should be made aware of the basic muslim culture of wearing the hat and burkha before entering mosques. Also, government should levy fine on visitors if they cause any damage to historical place.
To conclude, localites and authorities should make collective effort to preserve cultural values. Instead banning, government should take aberrated measures which will also covet locals to promote tourism.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 87, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Rather,
...ssed an overwhelming visit of tourists. Rather many places are known as tourist places...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 99, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Instead,
...ive effort to preserve cultural values. Instead banning, government should take aberrat...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, if, moreover, so, whereas, as to, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 7.48453608247 120% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 4.92783505155 203% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 10.0 5.05154639175 198% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 3.03092783505 198% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 32.9175257732 39% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 26.3917525773 140% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 3.85567010309 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1555.0 937.175257732 166% => OK
No of words: 279.0 206.0 135% => OK
Chars per words: 5.57347670251 4.54256449028 123% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08696624509 3.78020617076 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59271867071 2.54303337028 102% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 127.690721649 146% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.666666666667 0.622605031667 107% => OK
syllable_count: 472.5 290.88556701 162% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.41237113402 120% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 9.13402061856 11% => OK
Article: 2.0 0.824742268041 243% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 1.83505154639 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.463917525773 431% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 1.44329896907 208% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 12.6804123711 134% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 16.3608247423 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.8681561695 44.8134815571 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.4705882353 76.5299724578 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4117647059 16.8248392259 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.11764705882 4.34317383033 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.29896907216 93% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 2.54639175258 79% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 7.41237113402 94% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 1.49484536082 201% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 3.94845360825 177% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.197970456472 0.216113520407 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0531320682297 0.0766984524023 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0625108603531 0.0603063233224 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119980009171 0.12726935374 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0565146011144 0.0580467560999 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 8.37731958763 155% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 70.7449484536 66% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 3.82989690722 230% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 7.45979381443 143% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.73 8.71597938144 169% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.26 7.59969072165 135% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 41.2886597938 249% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 8.62886597938 99% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 8.54432989691 98% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 8.15463917526 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.