With the increasing demand for energy sources of oil and gas, people should look for sources of oil and gas in remote and untouched natural places. Do the advantages outweigh disadvantages of damaging such areas?
Nowadays, the demand for energy sources is rising, people have to search for sources of oil and gas in distant natural areas. I believe that the effect of developing the original natural areas is absolutely negative.
It is well known that the developed countries have destroyed many natural areas and caused wildlife extinct in order to obtain more sources of fuels. In recently, quite a few developing countries exploit the tropical rainforests for the same reason and the effect of their modes of development causes the damages to outweigh the benefits. Firstly, the absorption of the greenhouse-gas by the rainforests is decreased because people continually reclaim rainforests. Secondly, the developers who are from the developing countries use the destructive way to exploit the rainforests such as burning the forests, which will release Carbon Dioxide into the air and cause the Global Warming becoming serious during the process.
In addition, the scientists worried that some advanced countries are planning to develop the South Pole for obtaining sources of oil because this development will cause the damages which the ecology of Antarctic Circle cannot withstand. For example, people may have to erect their buildings and set up equipment on the wild animal’s habitat. These developing activities will cause different pollutants which influence animals such as noise, light pollution. What’s worst, the Oil spill, the ocean which as the main of food sources for animals will be polluted, finally, the pollution will directly influence the fish which eaten by people.
In conclusion, it is clear that the disadvantages of developing remote natural places outweigh the advantages. In general, people should weigh up the pros and cons before making the decision of the developing the distant natural places.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, well, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in general, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 11.0 24.0651302605 46% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 41.998997996 76% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1555.0 1615.20841683 96% => OK
No of words: 284.0 315.596192385 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.47535211268 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80934505869 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 176.041082164 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.55985915493 0.561755894193 100% => OK
syllable_count: 475.2 506.74238477 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 7.0 2.52805611222 277% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => 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: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.9320762279 49.4020404114 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.583333333 106.682146367 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6666666667 20.7667163134 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.1666666667 7.06120827912 144% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => 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: 0.291781844603 0.244688304435 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.114695170809 0.084324248473 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.108689849359 0.0667982634062 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.207417624129 0.151304729494 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.11683210293 0.056905535591 205% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 13.0946893788 124% => 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: 14.8 12.4159519038 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.61 8.58950901804 112% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 78.4519038076 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.