With the advent of machinery and modern ways of living, requirement of energy resources has flared up in recent decades. This has triggered a debate about digging unexplored land worldwide in search of oil and gas. While there may be other methods which are less harmful to other species, I strongly agree that massive geological work needs to be done under the surface of earth to ensure uninterrupted availability of natural resources to humans.
It could be argued that humans are being selfish and they are exhausting underground resources for their materialistic needs. Since many plants needs natural minerals and nutrients under the earth to grow, excessive digging might lead to detrimental effects on such vegetation. It could also result in soil erosion, loss of land suitable for plantation and deterioration of other living species on earth. For example, due to excessive digging, blue fungi has gone extinct from deep earth and proven a threat to survival of worms, which use it as their nutrition.
However, finding new natural resources is crucial for human progression and this undoubtedly outweighs any disadvantage this practice has to other species. With rapid modernization, machines are being used to manufacture necessary commodities. Such technology requires massive supply of energy resources and putting experts on finding natural gas and oil in far away places of the world is the only solution. If this does not happen, factories will close down and economy will collapse. Many will become unemployed and masses will be without basic life facilities, hindering the progress of humanity. For example, many factories in China stopped working recently due to unavailability of fuel and led to economic chaos. Moreover, synthesizing fuel products is impossible to afford and will not be sustainable owing to the huge demand of current times.
To conclude, growing global demand of energy sources has led to utmost need of working on untouched land in search of natural feul sources. It might have a harmful impact on other lives on earth but humans cannot afford to worry about other species at the cost of their own benefit. Therefore, countries should certainly invest in starting new projects to discover natural resources.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 335, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ongly agree that massive geological work needs to be done under the surface of ea...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, moreover, so, therefore, while, as to, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 41.998997996 145% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1893.0 1615.20841683 117% => OK
No of words: 360.0 315.596192385 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25833333333 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35587717469 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78187336959 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 176.041082164 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591666666667 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 594.0 506.74238477 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.3645375911 49.4020404114 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.352941176 106.682146367 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1764705882 20.7667163134 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.64705882353 7.06120827912 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => 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: 0.113993200513 0.244688304435 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0369268675344 0.084324248473 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0326699188226 0.0667982634062 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0699280319817 0.151304729494 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0316635332153 0.056905535591 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.0946893788 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 50.2224549098 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.4159519038 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.59 8.58950901804 112% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 78.4519038076 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.