It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environment, such as south pole. Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages
Remote natural areas are more accessible thanks to advanced technology. While I understand that critics may see this as a significant threat to nature, I believe that the benefits do outweigh the drawbacks.
Human exploration of the natural world not only disorder fauna and flora but also occasionally lead to dangerous situations for scientists and tourists themselves. First, native wildlife might be destroyed by such human activities as building infrastructure and changing the original landscape. Furthermore, waste left behind after tours contains many materials and substances which are extremely harmful to the environment. Second, traveling to remote places untough by people namely deep oceans or high mountains is very risky because of dangerous factors hidden in these places. The more dangerous places are, the more travelers want to reach there.
In spite of the drawbacks mentioned above, I believe that people, especially scientists, can acquire highly valuable knowledge via studying the natural environment. It is undeniable that only by visiting isolated natural places do people comprehend more deeply about how the variety of strange creatures survive and grow in the scope of their own environments. As a result, public perception to protect natural habitat could increase by impartation of the scientific study or by tour experience. In contrast, it is unrealistic to require inhabitants to protect ambiguous things that they are unaware of. The BBC planet earth series are excellent instances. The series keep people supplied with vastly natural information from diversified environments, including oceans, mountain and the South and the North Pole.
In conclusion, it seems to me that we gain more than we lose from the discovery of the natural world.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, if, may, second, so, while, in conclusion, in contrast, as a result, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 41.998997996 81% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1510.0 1615.20841683 93% => OK
No of words: 273.0 315.596192385 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.53113553114 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94780546936 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 176.041082164 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.67032967033 0.561755894193 119% => OK
syllable_count: 471.6 506.74238477 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.7225710782 49.4020404114 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.857142857 106.682146367 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5 20.7667163134 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.92857142857 7.06120827912 112% => 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 : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
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: 0.20785583325 0.244688304435 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0546826073828 0.084324248473 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0374447356103 0.0667982634062 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103990629633 0.151304729494 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0443325846679 0.056905535591 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.0946893788 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.79 12.4159519038 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.19 8.58950901804 119% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 78.4519038076 124% => 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?
---------------------
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.