Modern agriculture methods damage the environment, but providing food for the growing population worldwide is more important than protecting the environment.
Nowadays, people tend to have different points of view on whether we should protect the environment or improve modern agriculture. The most often heard contention about this topic is that we should use modern agriculture methods despite damaging the environment. However, I think this view is overgeneralized. This issue can be analyzed from two different perspectives.
Indisputably, there is no justification for us to ignore that agriculture is more important than the environment, especially in underdeveloped countries. It is widely believed that in some African countries, many people do not have food to eat. Thus, using modern agriculture methods ensures the basic food applies. I can think of no better illustration than the example of my friend Lucy, a volunteer who worked in Congo in 2016. When she arrived in Congo, she was surprised by the view she saw since the children there were so skinny. She once taught in the local primary school, where the children only eat one meal a day and sometimes find some grasses to eat. However, with the modern agriculture method, they could grow maize in very harsh conditions, so they could at least eat three meals a day. How could they care about the environment if they cannot even survive? Thus, recalling my experience with Lucy, I can conclude that, in underdeveloped countries, modern agriculture methods are more important.
However compelling the argument above is, it cannot support us in arriving at the verdict because it only focuses on the underdeveloped countries; To make a more reliable conclusion, we must consider other relevant situations in which the environment is more essential than agriculture when it comes to developing or developed counties. It is universally accepted that for people who live in developing or developed countries, countries the most urgent problem is the environment. In this case, protecting the environment is more significant than using modern agriculture methods to support the population since people there do not suffer from insufficient food issues. My grandmother’s experience is the best example of my point of view. My grandmother, who lives in a small city called Chongqing in China, once took a trip to a rural area to breathe some fresh air, but when she arrived, she found out that there was only land, which was left because of the using use of modern agriculture method. Vegetations like flowers, grasses, and trees cannot grow here, and the river was polluted too, with a smelt smell. She was so disappointed and even got sick because of the air pollution. As a result, it is more vital for developing countries to protect the environment by providing an excellent living area for the citizens instead of using modern agriculture methods.
From what has been discussed, we can quickly conclude that it is irrational to take it for granted that agriculture is more important than protecting the environment. Therefore, only in a case-by-case way can we fully explore this issue’s complexity.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 184, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a case-by-case way" with adverb for "case-by-case"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...ecting the environment. Therefore, only in a case-by-case way can we fully explore this issue’s compl...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, so, therefore, thus, at least, i think, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 15.1003584229 159% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 9.8082437276 143% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 13.8261648746 65% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.0286738351 154% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 43.0788530466 109% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 52.1666666667 107% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 8.0752688172 248% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2673.0 1977.66487455 135% => OK
No of words: 510.0 407.700716846 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24117647059 4.8611393121 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75217629947 4.48103885553 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0606235277 2.67179642975 115% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 212.727598566 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.490196078431 0.524837075471 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 847.8 618.680645161 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 17.0 9.59856630824 177% => OK
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6003584229 117% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.3132389818 48.9658058833 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.375 100.406767564 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.25 20.6045352989 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.875 5.45110844103 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 11.8709677419 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.38564154936 0.236089414692 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.109686840603 0.076458572812 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.130974517733 0.0737576698707 178% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.260313480942 0.150856017488 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.151556760579 0.0645574589148 235% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 11.7677419355 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 58.1214874552 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.1575268817 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 10.9000537634 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.01818996416 101% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 86.8835125448 127% => 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?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.