It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote environments. Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?
In the modern-day, it is easier for scientists and tourists to have an exploration to distant isolated destinations. While I accept that this perception can have potential benefits to the natural habitat, I believe that the advantages of this trend outweigh the disadvantages based on many reasons discussed in this essay.
On the one hand, both scientific and touristic expeditions in remote areas may bring a huge benefit to the protection of animal species. In terms of researchers, being closely exposed to the targeted area of study in their natural habitat can facilitate the way scientists find precise data and collect useful information. Another reason is that tourists who visit remote areas may have awareness of the damages of climate change, therefore have been motivated to protect fragile ecosystems that have been destroyed by human activities. For example, a campaign to preserve an endangered eagle in the Himalayas was carried out by two visitors after they had a chance to see the factual context of dying gradually of this kind of eagle.
On the other hand, there are myriads for compelling reasons as I am convinced that it hurts the environment. This means that people’s activities that occur in distant areas can affect the structures of ecosystems. For instance, a cruise boat heading to the South Pole struck an iceberg and sank to the ocean floor, which caused the disposal of several oil spills into the water surfaces that cover a number square kilometers. Despite the effort of the government to recover the initial state of the ocean, the dangerous oil spills still affected many marine creatures and disturbed the ecological balance across the other countries and the nearby water.
In conclusion, although there are numerous advantages of having an opportunity to distant destinations for promoting scientific research and raising awareness of the public, I believe that the hazardous activities that happen in these areas are the main reason which destroys the structure and animals living.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, may, so, still, therefore, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, kind of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 41.998997996 110% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1712.0 1615.20841683 106% => OK
No of words: 326.0 315.596192385 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25153374233 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24917287072 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81201189407 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 176.041082164 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.588957055215 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 542.7 506.74238477 107% => 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: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 16.0721442886 68% => 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: 29.0 20.2975951904 143% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 59.1085288416 49.4020404114 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 155.636363636 106.682146367 146% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.6363636364 20.7667163134 143% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.63636363636 7.06120827912 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.175540377768 0.244688304435 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0635044570461 0.084324248473 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0500541318108 0.0667982634062 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110316428306 0.151304729494 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0771987773929 0.056905535591 136% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.1 13.0946893788 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.58 50.2224549098 67% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.3001002004 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.4159519038 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.26 8.58950901804 119% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 78.4519038076 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.78957915832 148% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.1190380762 134% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.