It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to the remote natural environments, such as the South pole. Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?
With the aid of transportation technologies, it is now possible to travel to distant regions in the world. However, I would contend that the merits of this development are outweighed by its drawbacks.
On the one hand, the ability to travel anywhere in the world offers considerate benefits. First of all, the discovery of new areas allows people to have a better understanding of the earth and new species. This newfound knowledge can act as a precursor to clinical breakthroughs, or provide scientists with valuable insights to effectively combat environmental issues such as climate change. Second, access to previously unreachable scenic beauty suggests tourism opportunities, as travel enthusiasts are always on the lookout for new exotics getaways.
On the other hand, I believe that the positive aspects of this trend are eclipsed by more immediate threats to life in this remote natural world. To begin with, the indigenous people living there will be driven out by construction facilities. This can be explained that major cooperations set a foot on and exploit tourism, Hotels and creational facilities emerged at the expense of local's accommodation. Consequently, local people are coerced into assimilation, Which, history have indicated result in the loss of civilization culture. Another issue is that the presence of foreign visitors in these places also poses certain threats to the natural environment, namely water contamination, land degradation, and natural resource depletion.
In conclusion, as exciting as the though of traveling to remote natural areas may sound, I believe that they better off left untouched.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 655, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'resources'' or 'resource's'?
Suggestion: resources'; resource's
...nt, namely water contamination, natural resources depletion, land degration. In conclus...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 86, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...eling to remote natural areas may sound, I believe that they better off left touc...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, thus, in conclusion, such as, first of all, to begin with
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: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1341.0 1615.20841683 83% => OK
No of words: 239.0 315.596192385 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.61087866109 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.93187294222 4.20363070211 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19575443577 2.80592935109 114% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 176.041082164 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.669456066946 0.561755894193 119% => OK
syllable_count: 420.3 506.74238477 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => 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: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.9506991364 49.4020404114 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.75 106.682146367 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9166666667 20.7667163134 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.75 7.06120827912 152% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.205531630714 0.244688304435 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0619232118811 0.084324248473 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0522435379756 0.0667982634062 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119450254017 0.151304729494 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0444639656724 0.056905535591 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 50.2224549098 70% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.26 12.4159519038 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.13 8.58950901804 118% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 78.4519038076 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
More content wanted.
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.