With the increased global demand in oil and gas, undiscovered areas of the world should be opened up to access more resources.
To what extend do you agree?
One may argue that with the rising level of oil and gas consumption, intact places on Earth ought to be disclosed to gather more resources. I agree with this statement for two reasons: it may solve the global energy crisis and indirect discoveries may be made during the exploration.
First of all, the world desperately needs new sources of fuel to power millions of cars, plants and other facilities. Our current savings are being depleted as the technology develops. Even though altertative sources of fuel are under investigation, sun or wind resources might fail to provide people with a proper amount of energy. If we start to expore new sites for a fossil development, we are likely to find new natural storages of gas and oil. Furthermore, there is a probability of a discovery of the brand new source of energy, unknown to science so far. Such a scenario depicts the possible solution to the energy crisis. For instance, a team of researchers claimed that they found evidence of the underground oil lake underneath the Antarctica ice shield, worth billions of dollars.
Secondly, different secluded places on Earth may contain previously unreported historical items or scientific evidence of the geological evolution of the our planet. Marshes are known to preserve wooden structures and human bodies for thousands of years, and many scientists utilize such an opportunity to study the history of the humankind. Ocean floors and mountains hold the riddles of the planet’s evolution deep underground. If one will expore unknown places, he or she will probably discover lots of new items in addition to new energy resources.
In conclusion, the disclosure of intact parts of the world might not only resolve the global energy problem, but also provide a variety of scientific evidence for history and natural sciences.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 151, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'our'?
Suggestion: the; our
...evidence of the geological evolution of the our planet. Marshes are known to preserve w...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 248, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ctures and human bodies for thousands of years, and many scientists utilize such ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, if, may, second, secondly, so, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 7.30460921844 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 24.0651302605 50% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1537.0 1615.20841683 95% => OK
No of words: 299.0 315.596192385 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.14046822742 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87192253744 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 176.041082164 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.615384615385 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 486.9 506.74238477 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.7862690666 49.4020404114 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.785714286 106.682146367 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3571428571 20.7667163134 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.28571428571 7.06120827912 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.123273754494 0.244688304435 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0380977779385 0.084324248473 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0481515289897 0.0667982634062 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0789381280253 0.151304729494 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0658223128849 0.056905535591 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 13.0946893788 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 50.2224549098 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.4159519038 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.11 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 78.4519038076 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.