It is considered that in few nations, regime are focusing on big industries and businesses to shift to the remote places outside the huge conurbation. I believe its pros are eclipsed by its cons.
To commence with demerits that people have to face the obstacles to go to work one city to another place. To elaborate it, those workers work in the factory and they go to outside the city daily. They spend the lot of money or time to go to factory and work in the industries. Hence, they can leave their job for this critical issues.
Further shifting towards the merits, no any harm chemicals mix in the river. To explain it, chemicals produce from the huge project in the factory. These all chemicals no mixing in the river and save the water. Moreover, all the cities masses uses the water safely. For instance, a survey was conducted by the France industry in 2019 found that 90% water was protected from the harm chemicals. Therefore, with this water save the flora or fauna life.
Furthermore, these all factories increases the work and products. In other words, when the factories create the more products in the remote places then numerous profit to the urban people. Then can buy the more products from the industry and selling their items and earn the money. To epitome, a headline was published in "THE MOSCOW TIMES" newspaper revealed that 60% shops are in profit from the given products from the companies. Thus, society and big industries are in profitable.
To conclude, although people faces the trouble for work yet water save from the harm chemicals and big industries can work for the money-making system.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Further,
... their job for this critical issues. Further shifting towards the merits, no any har...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 38, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
... Further shifting towards the merits, no any harm chemicals mix in the river. To...
^^
Line 5, column 159, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'chemicals'' or 'chemical's'?
Suggestion: chemicals'; chemical's
... huge project in the factory. These all chemicals no mixing in the river and save the wat...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, hence, if, moreover, so, then, therefore, thus, for instance, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 7.85571142285 38% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.3376753507 36% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1364.0 1615.20841683 84% => OK
No of words: 281.0 315.596192385 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.85409252669 5.12529762239 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09427095027 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4922925478 2.80592935109 89% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 176.041082164 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.537366548043 0.561755894193 96% => OK
syllable_count: 425.7 506.74238477 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 20.2975951904 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.6079074639 49.4020404114 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 75.7777777778 106.682146367 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.6111111111 20.7667163134 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.94444444444 7.06120827912 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.100926681891 0.244688304435 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.03476294098 0.084324248473 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0422240832369 0.0667982634062 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0614872562284 0.151304729494 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0270992905839 0.056905535591 48% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.2 13.0946893788 70% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 50.2224549098 129% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 11.3001002004 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.55 12.4159519038 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.58950901804 97% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 78.4519038076 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.1190380762 79% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 10.7795591182 74% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.