The global demand for oil and gas is increasing. Some believe that we should therefore encourage the exploitation of remote areas. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?
It comes as encouragement of exploiting gas and oil, in remote locations on the grounds of overconsumption of these fossil fuels. Although there are still certain benefits of this direction, I personally opine that its drawbacks are more significant.
The merit of this trend is somewhat related to enhancing the standard life in these zones. Firstly, dwellers can be employed in manual positions without requiring high-level knowledge when carrying out extraction processes. Moreover, groceries, restaurants, accommodations, and others can be erected to meet the demand of workers, giving rise to standing a chance to make money. Therefore, taking out these materials in far-off areas can improve the quality of life by making job opportunities.
However, the aforementioned strength is minored in comparison with the considerable weaknesses which should be taken into account. One evident downside is that environment is put in jeopardy when utilizing gas and oil. To be more detailed, because of the main power in manufacturing, the more gas and oil are exploited, the more people burn them while gas and oil production are among the prime culprits of greenhouse gases. That acts as a catalyst for environmental issues such as global warming, extreme weather conditions, and so on.
In addition to this, on a wider level, it is worth mentioning that due to being non-renewable energy and the prevalent, it is a short-time policy. In other words, if the government do not reduce the rate of exploitation considerably, the depletion of natural resources will occur soon. Thereby, worsening global storage can generate several deleterious implications such as increasing the rate of unemployment, useless millions of dollars of high-value drills, factories, and other constructions for the sake of these extractions. In this context, to ensure the long-term development, extracting oil and gas even in godforsaken regions should be substituted for alternative power, namely, wind, solar, etc.
In conclusion, it can be confidently conveyed that, even though the expansion of oil and gas has beneficial impacts of living standard, these do not surpass the cons when it comes to the environment protection, and a permanent outlook.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, look, moreover, so, still, therefore, well, while, in addition, in conclusion, such as, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 13.1623246493 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1897.0 1615.20841683 117% => OK
No of words: 347.0 315.596192385 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.46685878963 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.23357836373 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 176.041082164 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.625360230548 0.561755894193 111% => OK
syllable_count: 588.6 506.74238477 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.3073788217 49.4020404114 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.466666667 106.682146367 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1333333333 20.7667163134 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.73333333333 7.06120827912 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.218232299843 0.244688304435 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0640432373172 0.084324248473 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0474727963958 0.0667982634062 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112421550381 0.151304729494 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0476398162344 0.056905535591 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 13.0946893788 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 50.2224549098 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.3001002004 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.74 12.4159519038 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.51 8.58950901804 122% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 78.4519038076 161% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.