It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environment,
such as the South Pole. Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
The past 50 years have witness a dramatic flourish of tourism. Rural areas have become accessible to not only scientists but also to thrill-seekers worldwide. Some people claim that this phenomenon is posing considerable threats to different aspects of life while the opponents laud its significance. Although this trend appears attractive to some people, the drawbacks are believed to be far more significant.
On the one hand, it is undeniable that visiting remote areas offers a variety of benefits to both travellers and researchers. First, thanks to fascinating journeys to remote areas, people are able to totally immerse themselves into the nature, which probably arouses and develops a high appreciation for nature and for peoples in them. Consequently, these one of a kind experiences will not only broaden their horizons but also develop their greater tolerance toward different cultures. Second, the investigation into rural areas like the South Pole allows scientists to have deeper insights into our planet – the Earth. In fact, expeditions to the wilds is the prerequisite for a vast amount of remarkable discoveries about flora and fauna, geology and so on, from which people can get to new heights of development.
On the other hand, not only the environment but also tourists themselves are put in danger if accessing to rural areas becomes common. Since a massive influx of visitors explores untouched areas, there is possibility that these areas will probably lose their inherently natural beauty. In fact, the constructions of accommodation and other services to facilitate travellers’ needs entail the destruction of natural landscapes as well as the biodiversity and ecosystem of the locality. For example, the commercialization of Son Doong Cave, – the biggest natural cave in the world, has left detrimental impacts on the creatures there. Furthermore, by exploring remote areas with ill-equipped, thrill-seekers put themselves in jeopardy. They are prone to suffer from severe temperature or be attacked by wild animals, which leave themselves at stake.
In conclusion, although developing tourism in remote areas is not without advantages, the downsides should be seriously considered. Exploration is needed to go hand in hand with preservation for sustainable development of any areas.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 819, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... can get to new heights of development. On the other hand, not only the environm...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, furthermore, if, second, so, well, while, for example, in conclusion, in fact, as well as, 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: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 41.998997996 136% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1969.0 1615.20841683 122% => OK
No of words: 358.0 315.596192385 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.5 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34981470047 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.18398630591 2.80592935109 113% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 176.041082164 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.611731843575 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 623.7 506.74238477 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.467799863 49.4020404114 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.823529412 106.682146367 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0588235294 20.7667163134 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.23529411765 7.06120827912 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => 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: 0.134199898856 0.244688304435 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0379656255893 0.084324248473 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0314335945465 0.0667982634062 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0716603210208 0.151304729494 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0423995804087 0.056905535591 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 12.4159519038 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.01 8.58950901804 117% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 78.4519038076 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => 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.