Q9. With the increasing demand for energy sources of oil and gas, people should look for sources of oil and gas in remote and untouched natural places. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of damaging such areas?
Recently, the issue of resources has become the subject of heated debate. Some people assert that although there are some disadvantages to developing natural spaces in order to acquire fossil fuels, these are exceeded by the advantages, while others argue otherwise. Personally, I wholeheartedly agree with the former stance. In the following essay, both views will be discussed before a conclusion is reached with my opinion.
On the one hand, those who claim that exploiting undamaged land so as to secure fossil fuels should be discouraged do so for several reasons. Proponents of this argument insist that devotion to gaining fossil fuels poses a threat to the environment given that being equipped with a multitude of facilities that make it possible for developers to produce energy sources with greater ease is unavoidable. In addition, destroying untouched natural spaces leads numerous endangered species of animals and plants that should be protected in a bid to keep biodiversity to become extinct.
My opinion, however, is that the benefits of making use of natural spaces in order to produce fossil fuels are more significant. Perhaps the principal advantage is that fossil fuels are economical considering that obtaining renewable energy sources, such as tidal power and solar power, costs a fortune. Furthermore, fossil fuels can facilitate various aspects of people's daily lives, from operating businesses to commuting to and from work. To provide a hypothetical example, if it were not for making an effort to create fossil fuels, human beings would have difficulty having an improved standard of living. In light of the above, I find these more persuasive.
In conclusion, it is undeniable that there are a variety of opinions about this topic. However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, I fully support the view that the benefits of developing untouched land to obtain fossil fuels surpass the drawbacks for the reasons discussed above.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 65, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...ho claim that exploiting undamaged land so as to secure fossil fuels should be discourag...
^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 127, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a careful manner" with adverb for "careful"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, I fully support the view that the bene...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, so, while, as to, in addition, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 10.4138276553 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 24.0651302605 104% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 8.3376753507 48% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1671.0 1615.20841683 103% => OK
No of words: 313.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33865814696 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83460951013 2.80592935109 101% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 176.041082164 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.603833865815 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 540.0 506.74238477 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
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: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.0852030926 49.4020404114 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.357142857 106.682146367 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3571428571 20.7667163134 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.64285714286 7.06120827912 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.143045276124 0.244688304435 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0416756593735 0.084324248473 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0338707724716 0.0667982634062 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.082158250353 0.151304729494 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0413148512965 0.056905535591 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.0946893788 114% => 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: 13.99 12.4159519038 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.97 8.58950901804 116% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 78.4519038076 133% => 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.