Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Some modern agriculture methods damage environment, people think providing more food for the growing world population is more important that protecting the environment.
Nowadays, farmers try to use modern methods to improve food productions with high quality. It is believed by researchers that such agriculture methods have harmful effects on the environment and people, but others stand on the other side of the continuum, believing that novel approaches have not a negative impact on their surroundings. As far as I am concerned, I agree with the former perspective. The reasons to substantiate my viewpoint are elaborated upon hereunder.
To begin with, the environment should protect by the government because a normal environment has more benefit for people, therefore, they can use it for years, but the damaged environment cause people especially farmers cannot work in it. Therefore, the poor environment has just detriment for people. For example, sometimes farmers use a contemporary system to cultivate more seeds, but they do not pay attention to impacts that this method may have. Farmers use the manner repeatedly and after a while, they will realize that there are no suitable places for sheep grazing and sheep are starting to lose weight. This is a catastrophic issue for everyone because sheep are the most important food source on the land which now damaged by people. As you can see, using modern methods, besides their advantages, have irreparable injuries for the population. Thus, before using a technique we must evaluate its negative dimensions.
Secondly, some methods can produce noxious gases in a direct way that these gases have dangerous chemical substances for people. Why is in a direct why? Because farmer use a method like as new pesticides to protect grains against insects or bad atmospheric conditions, but he/she do not know that these materials can be chemical interaction with atmosphere substances. This interaction generates deadly gases in the air then people breathe this air, consequently imported heavily gases into their lungs and they lose their health. This fact demonstrates that agriculturist should consider everything about a process which he/she decide to use it because maybe the method has detrimental influences on the environment and consequently on people. As a result, environmental protection takes a priority over food productions.
All in all, taking all reasons and examples into account, I believe that the environment has a critical role in human lives, so we must try to preserve it against anything harmful because otherwise, we will face various problems.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 50, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a direct way" with adverb for "direct"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... some methods can produce noxious gases in a direct way that these gases have dangerous chemica...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 281, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'she' must be used with a third-person verb: 'does'.
Suggestion: does
... bad atmospheric conditions, but he/she do not know that these materials can be ch...
^^
Line 5, column 630, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'she' must be used with a third-person verb: 'decides'.
Suggestion: decides
...everything about a process which he/she decide to use it because maybe the method has ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, consequently, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, while, for example, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 15.1003584229 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 9.8082437276 122% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 13.8261648746 80% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 43.0788530466 95% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 52.1666666667 79% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.0752688172 173% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2077.0 1977.66487455 105% => OK
No of words: 390.0 407.700716846 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32564102564 4.8611393121 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44391917772 4.48103885553 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93829260713 2.67179642975 110% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 212.727598566 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.566666666667 0.524837075471 108% => OK
syllable_count: 658.8 618.680645161 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 9.59856630824 94% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.51792114695 142% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.9837716656 48.9658058833 139% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.388888889 100.406767564 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6666666667 20.6045352989 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.88888888889 5.45110844103 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 11.8709677419 51% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.85842293907 207% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.19737476053 0.236089414692 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0601865874483 0.076458572812 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0497861210858 0.0737576698707 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0990790943533 0.150856017488 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0615037227246 0.0645574589148 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 11.7677419355 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 58.1214874552 72% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.1575268817 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 10.9000537634 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.89 8.01818996416 111% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 86.8835125448 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => 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: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.