Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
It is almost impossible to restore nature since only a few people are trying to conserve the Earth.
Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
In the epoch of the industrial revolution, the affliction of nature's pollution has assumed alarming proportions, beckoning humanity towards an abyss of irreparable damage. Some proclaim that the restoration of nature's delicate balance is an endeavor beyond mortal capabilities, as a paltry few souls toil towards its attainment. Yet, I, an individual of dissenting persuasion, firmly reject this aforestated proposition, fortified by two potent arguments: the manifold exertions of humanity and the advent of novel technologies.
Foremost, one must concede that there exists an extensive pantheon of human endeavors dedicated to the sanctity of our planet. Across the vast tapestry of our world, numerous organizations and institutions have emerged, champions of the noble cause to thwart the clutches of global warming and the ravages of climate change. Amongst them, 'Save the Earth' and the 'World Climate Foundation' stand as epitomes of resolute dedication. These heralds of environmental consciousness employ multifarious stratagems to awaken the dormant conscience of humanity. Through tireless campaigns and the instrument of social media, they disseminate the solemnity of our environmental plight, instilling in the masses a profound awareness of the precipice upon which we teeter. The fruits of their labor are undeniable, for they have kindled the dormant flames of enlightenment within the hearts of countless souls. Such manifestations elucidate the existence of numerous contingents devoted to the preservation of our delicate ecosystem.
Furthermore, one must not disregard the profound impact of technological advancement on the tapestry of our quest for restoration. In the annals of our nascent millennium, the emergence of renewable energy sources bereft of carbon emissions has revolutionized the perennial struggle against environmental degradation. Through the triumphant ascent of solar and wind power, a paradigm shift unfolds before our eyes, as the shackles of pollutive energy are cast asunder. Moreover, the advent of technologies facilitating carbon capture and storage augments our ability to temper the greenhouse effect, unleashing the tempests of hope upon an arid landscape. Recent studies attest to the potency of these novel technologies, revealing a precipitous 79% decline in carbon dioxide emissions over the preceding decade. Behold, the resplendent proof that the miracles of innovation possess the potency to safeguard and resuscitate our cherished ecosystems.
Granted, detractors may contend that a considerable multitude remains obstinately indifferent to our shared predicament, impeding our collective progress. Verily, the specter of global warming accelerates with baleful swiftness. Yet, in a world where enlightenment gains foothold with each passing day, where consciousness awakens to the encroaching cataclysm, the naysayers find their refutation. The drumbeat of urgency reverberates ever louder, arousing dormant minds from their slumber, while the alchemists of technology ply their trade, birthing solutions within the crucible of ingenuity. Thus, I, in my unwavering conviction, assert my disagreement with the aforementioned assertion, dismissing it as an illusory fallacy, for the flames of human endeavor and the crucible of technological prowess shall forge a path towards the redemption and restoration of our precious natural world.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, if, may, moreover, so, still, thus, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 15.1003584229 20% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 9.8082437276 41% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.0286738351 63% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 43.0788530466 72% => OK
Preposition: 74.0 52.1666666667 142% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 8.0752688172 334% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2914.0 1977.66487455 147% => OK
No of words: 491.0 407.700716846 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.93482688391 4.8611393121 122% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70728369723 4.48103885553 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.25058573023 2.67179642975 122% => OK
Unique words: 301.0 212.727598566 141% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.613034623218 0.524837075471 117% => OK
syllable_count: 912.6 618.680645161 148% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.51630824373 125% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 9.59856630824 21% => OK
Article: 10.0 3.08781362007 324% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.94265232975 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6003584229 102% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.7108629671 48.9658058833 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.761904762 100.406767564 138% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.380952381 20.6045352989 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.57142857143 5.45110844103 47% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 11.8709677419 126% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88709677419 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0414779761062 0.236089414692 18% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0119172459633 0.076458572812 16% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0214245381751 0.0737576698707 29% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0273690817433 0.150856017488 18% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0231695604605 0.0645574589148 36% => 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: 18.2 11.7677419355 155% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 22.75 58.1214874552 39% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 10.1575268817 156% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.41 10.9000537634 160% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.69 8.01818996416 146% => OK
difficult_words: 215.0 86.8835125448 247% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.002688172 120% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.