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 by the researchers.
Scientists and tourists travel to remote natural locations for exploring natural more resources and to perform adventurous activities. 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. By unrevealing natural resource such as fossil fuel, which is at the edge of confronting crisis, mankind is likely to be benefited utmost. As far tourists, for them, reaching these 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, however, believe that by visiting to remote natural areas, we are posing a threat to our as well as environment and its habitat's lives. In order to reach at the remote natural destinations, travellers tend to encounter dense wild and dangerous animals, which means consciously putting their own life to the death. A recent journey to the South Pole by a few tourists who were rescued by the Army and two of them lost their lives. Even, intervening to these locations is proved deteriorating not only for the environment but also for many wild species. For the sake of development, science and technology have already degraded the environment enormously, and further disturbing it can adversely affect to the eco-system.
In conclusion, despite the benefits, amusement for tourists and more availability of natural resources for people, of travelling to far flung natural areas, I think these are easily outstripped by the drawbacks of threat to life of visitors and distortion of environment and local habitats.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, so, well, i think, in conclusion, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => 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: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 41.998997996 107% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1738.0 1615.20841683 108% => OK
No of words: 321.0 315.596192385 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41433021807 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23278547379 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03222023059 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 176.041082164 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548286604361 0.561755894193 98% => OK
syllable_count: 558.9 506.74238477 110% => 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: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => 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: 58.6142741667 49.4020404114 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.692307692 106.682146367 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6923076923 20.7667163134 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.46153846154 7.06120827912 92% => 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: 0.260518501771 0.244688304435 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0948347785341 0.084324248473 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0661185856906 0.0667982634062 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167273349878 0.151304729494 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0174840752546 0.056905535591 31% => 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: 16.4 13.0946893788 125% => 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: 14.39 12.4159519038 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.6 8.58950901804 112% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 78.4519038076 124% => 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.