Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Modern agriculture does damage the environment, but providing food for the growing population around the world is more important than protecting the environment. @aalaeeTOEFLiBT
Agriculture plays an indispensable role in feeding earth population. With the growth of human population and scarcity of resources, some people believe that no matter how much we damage the environment, we should try our best to provide more food for the public. However, I subscribe to the view that we cannot turn a blind eye to the environment since it could harmfully affect various facets of human's life.
First and foremost, damaging environment by activities like deforestation would impose detrimental effects on human's health. Admittedly, we have been faced with various earth destructions in the human history. Nowadays, many environment specialists warn governments about their policies and mention consequences of their successor's policies which impose irreversible impacts on the earth including, climate change and air pollution. These two factors have provoked numerous illnesses and diseases on the human's body. According to the large-scale survey done by World Health Organization number of people in the world suffering from lung cancer increases thirty percent compared to the 30 years ago. The researchers claim that most possible explanation of this issue is increasing the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the environment and that is because of various factors like deforestation. it should be stressed that in the case of overlooking human responsibilities regarding preserving the environment, the earth will become a place where no longer can play its previous hospitable role
More importantly, inclining toward modern agriculture by processes which are harmful to earth imposes severe effects on the economy. Without any doubt, if we try to damage the environment in order to provide more food for humans, governments will allocate a sheer scale of the budget to make the earth a better place for humans to live in the future. As an economic point of view, economic development obtaining by damaging the environment is not sustainable. Many economists have mentioned that consequences of this approach and warn the world's states to avoid these actives since it will deteriorate the economic situation of people going to live in the future.
In a nutshell, I disagree with idea that governments should not interfere in the agriculture sector by introducing various laws to protect the environment because if they neglect their role, our next generation will pay the price of our negative policies. I think we reach a stage of humans history that not only people should not ruin the environment, but also they should put as much as effort possible to leave a better earth for their children.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 411, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...y affect various facets of humans life. First and foremost, damaging environment...
^^^
Line 2, column 111, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
...ion would impose detrimental effects on humans health. Admittedly, we have been faced ...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 888, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: It
... of various factors like deforestation. it should be stressed that in the case of ...
^^
Line 2, column 1086, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...er can play its previous hospitable role More importantly, inclining toward moder...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, regarding, so, i think
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 15.1003584229 40% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 9.8082437276 133% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.0286738351 100% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 43.0788530466 79% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 52.1666666667 115% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 8.0752688172 260% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2202.0 1977.66487455 111% => OK
No of words: 415.0 407.700716846 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30602409639 4.8611393121 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51348521516 4.48103885553 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98141920941 2.67179642975 112% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 212.727598566 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.542168674699 0.524837075471 103% => OK
syllable_count: 695.7 618.680645161 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 9.59856630824 83% => OK
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.6003584229 73% => 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: 27.0 20.1344086022 134% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 69.9064772074 48.9658058833 143% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.8 100.406767564 146% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6666666667 20.6045352989 134% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.93333333333 5.45110844103 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 11.8709677419 34% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 3.85842293907 285% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.88709677419 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.155189193097 0.236089414692 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0488143210304 0.076458572812 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0530872493782 0.0737576698707 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104711253418 0.150856017488 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0371767768717 0.0645574589148 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 11.7677419355 148% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 58.1214874552 61% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 10.1575268817 148% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 10.9000537634 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.28 8.01818996416 116% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 86.8835125448 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 10.002688172 125% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.0537634409 127% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.247311828 127% => 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.
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.