With advanced means of communication to get to remote destinations have become much easier than used to be. Hence, tourists around the world, as well as scientists, can achieve yet unaffected places such as the South Pole for their own reasons. In this essay, both sides for and against this tendency will be examined and will state that although availability may open a wide range of opportunity to discover new places, it also may jeopardize local surroundings.
To begin with, the ability to discover unexplored wilderness allows scientists with ease to make new research in a pristine place. This is important because the South Pole plays a crucial role in the Earth system. What I mean by this it connects all oceans in the world. No matter what changes in the South Pole happened, they always affect the world altogether. Therefore, making study in this place helps to grasp human influence on global climate changes. In addition, tourists from evergreen places appear to gain particular experience to see snow, to feel low temperature and observe peculiar animals. Thus, it expands their tourist destinations.
On the other hand, the presence of human being in many cases may lead to sweeping changes. To put it another way, having been allowed, humanity frequently brings about anthropogenic catastrophes which in turn gives rise to habitat loss and extinction of many species. To give an illustration of what I mean, let’s look back at the case of Siberian woods where rampant deforestation has led to the extinction of many species including Siberian tigers. Furthermore, overcrowded tourists’ destinations seem to threaten secluded habitats and apparently deteriorate the environment with litters and waste.
In conclusion, while achieving far-flung places such as the South Pole no longer is a huge problem, scientist and researchers may enjoy not only the great opportunity to obtain new experience of discovering new land but also making momentous research in a natural lab for all mankind. Personally, I believe that small possibility of negative influence from human activities pose a threat secluded place and indeed disadvantages outweigh their disadvantages.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, furthermore, hence, look, may, so, therefore, thus, well, while, i mean, in addition, in conclusion, in particular, such as, as well as, in many cases, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 41.998997996 121% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1839.0 1615.20841683 114% => OK
No of words: 346.0 315.596192385 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31502890173 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97403899585 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 176.041082164 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.650289017341 0.561755894193 116% => OK
syllable_count: 572.4 506.74238477 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.5405016807 49.4020404114 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.9375 106.682146367 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.625 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.9375 7.06120827912 183% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.211413424249 0.244688304435 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0596003750991 0.084324248473 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0471875000366 0.0667982634062 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119274140017 0.151304729494 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0548599881968 0.056905535591 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.0946893788 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.4159519038 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.42 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 78.4519038076 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.78957915832 148% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => 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.