It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environment, such as the South Pole. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?
Science and technology enable humans to reach far flung natural environment, like the South Pole. Though this achievement offers pros of adventure activities and chances to discover natural resources, I believe these are easily overweighed by cons of life threatening chances for the travellers and intervention in natural life.
Scientists and tourists travel to remote natural locations for exploring natural more resources and to perform adventurous activities, respectively. Considering natural resources at first, it has been discovered in many researches that South Pole area contains an excessive amount of natural resources that have potential to cater burgeoning human requirements. Natural resources such as fossil fuel, which are at the point of facing crisis, are likely to be proved bane for mankind. As far tourists, for them, reaching too far away areas is adventurous as well as leisure activity. They amuse themselves and explore unique as well as unexplored places to make their life more interesting.
I, nevertheless, believe that by visiting to remote natural areas, we are posing a threat to our as well as environment and its habitant's lives. In order to reach at the remote natural destination, travellers are bound to encounter dense wild and dangerous animals which means consciously putting own life to the death. A recent itinerary to the South Pole by a few tourists is good paradigm who were rescued by the Army and two of them lost their life. Even, intervening to these locations is deteriorating not only to the environment but also to many wild species. For the sake of development, science and technology already degraded the environment enormously and disturbing environment further can adversely affect to the eco-system.
In conclusion, the benefits of amusement for tourists and more availability of natural resources for people to travel to far flung natural areas, I feel are easily outstripped by drawbacks of threat to life and distortion of environment and habitats.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, nevertheless, so, well, i feel, in conclusion, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 7.85571142285 13% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 10.4138276553 144% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 41.998997996 105% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1704.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 316.0 315.596192385 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.39240506329 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04829470768 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 176.041082164 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.553797468354 0.561755894193 99% => OK
syllable_count: 552.6 506.74238477 109% => 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: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.9326309007 49.4020404114 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.076923077 106.682146367 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3076923077 20.7667163134 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.76923076923 7.06120827912 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.269753026665 0.244688304435 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0953113701539 0.084324248473 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0717002066555 0.0667982634062 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.172206676567 0.151304729494 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0305007345195 0.056905535591 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 13.0946893788 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 50.2224549098 77% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.28 12.4159519038 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.37 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 78.4519038076 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 9.78957915832 158% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.