It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole. Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?
In this day and age, both scientists and tourists are able to pay a visit to remote uncultivated environments, such as the South Pole. Although this trend has several merits, I believe that its negative influences are more glaring.
On the one hand, the ability to travel to distant regions offers considerable benefits. When it comes to scientific expeditions, scientists can collect specimens, observe and record natural phenomenons in these regions. Therefore, they can, perhaps, find ways to cope with one of the most severe environmental issues, which is global warming. Moreover, as the tourism of remote untamed areas is expanding and becoming more prevalent, many people will have chances to come and explore new places. The discovery of new areas allows tourists to gain a better understanding of the Earth and brand new species. This could assist them to raise awareness of conserving and protecting the environment and thus have positive actions towards environmental problems.
However, I am convinced that the aforementioned advantages pale in comparison with the significant downsides of visiting untamed environments.
It goes without saying that the arrival of humans will pose a threat to the wildlife in those areas. In fact, to meet the need of tourists and travelers, hotels and other accommodations are built on the land where native animals and plants inhabit, hence pollute natural habitats and destroy them. For example, irresponsible littering can contaminate water and threaten the lives of aquatic creatures. Furthermore, the presence of foreign visitors in these places could possibly put pressure on indigenous people’s life by constructing tourism facilities, which can drive out the indigenous and weaken the identity of local culture.
In conclusion, while there is no doubt that traveling to distant isolated regions can benefit us humans in various ways, I am of the opinion that this trend is detrimental as it can be a potential threat to the remote natural environments.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 464, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...nce of foreign visitors in these places could possibly put pressure on indigenous people’s lif...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, hence, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, thus, while, for example, in conclusion, in fact, no doubt, 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: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 24.0651302605 96% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 8.3376753507 24% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1698.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 316.0 315.596192385 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.37341772152 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01352901999 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.626582278481 0.561755894193 112% => OK
syllable_count: 538.2 506.74238477 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => 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: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.8072469533 49.4020404114 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.285714286 106.682146367 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5714285714 20.7667163134 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.92857142857 7.06120827912 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.9879759519 201% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.201684065505 0.244688304435 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0567590151828 0.084324248473 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0651018011399 0.0667982634062 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101618455146 0.151304729494 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0641884012131 0.056905535591 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.97 8.58950901804 116% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 78.4519038076 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.