It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environment, such as the South Pole. Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?
The world we live in is unknown to many but due to the advent in technology, it is made possible to travel to remote locations. Several fields like research and tourism may add to its advantageous side. However, as the risk of climate change is involved, I firmly believe that a neutral approach should be followed in order to maintain a good atmosphere for everyone.
To begin with, a plethora of cogent reasons prove to beneficial for knowing mankind and nature to a greater extent. Firstly, the forests which were hidden from the eyes of the scientist can now study the different aspects of species. Secondly, places like South pole can be analysed to get better insights about the characteristics of Earth. For instance, a group of researchers from the US, stayed in Antarctica for 6 months to study the causes of depletion of the ozone layer eventually leading to a staggering knowledge. Finally, tourists who have a deep feeling of wanderlust or those who want to have a thrilling experience would be benefited the most.
On the other hand, we must not pollute the very land we live in. With an increase in visitors in these regions, our environment would not be in safe grips. Furthermore, a significant amount of people would poison the biosphere which may guide to catastrophic events like weather modification, global warming and many others. To exemplify, in Kedarnath, due to an increased volume of people high pressure was created thus resulting in heavy rainfall and floods.
To sum up, I strongly opine in the fact that although there is a dire need for understanding certain areas properly yet it cannot be denied that it should be protected at all cost for the human race to survive so as a whole, only a limited number should be permitted to sustain the beauty of nature.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 501, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[4]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'staggering knowledge'.
Suggestion: staggering knowledge
...f the ozone layer eventually leading to a staggering knowledge. Finally, tourists who have a deep feel...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 289, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hould be permitted to sustain the beauty of nature.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, thus, for instance, to begin with, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 41.998997996 126% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1484.0 1615.20841683 92% => OK
No of words: 309.0 315.596192385 98% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80258899676 5.12529762239 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1926597562 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78720637759 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 176.041082164 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.644012944984 0.561755894193 115% => OK
syllable_count: 468.0 506.74238477 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => 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: 57.9145463123 49.4020404114 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.153846154 106.682146367 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7692307692 20.7667163134 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.2307692308 7.06120827912 159% => 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: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.128467751847 0.244688304435 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0386964573254 0.084324248473 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.033251880757 0.0667982634062 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0666983006484 0.151304729494 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0511837454154 0.056905535591 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 13.0946893788 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 50.2224549098 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.86 12.4159519038 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.48 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 78.4519038076 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.