Some modern agriculture methods damage the environment. People think providing more food for the growing world population is more important than protecting the environment. Do you agree with this view?
During the history, agriculture has had a prominent role in communities’ development and has had a vital role in human life. According to the history, those societies which had better agriculture methods survived for longer periods of time. In the modern era, inventing and exerting many sophisticated agricultural facilities has caused countries to have modern systems and mechanisms to produce more food for the growing population of the world. The controversial question which arises here is weather producing more food in massive scales using modern technology is more important than protecting the environment. Although providing the whole population with enough food seems to be humanitarian, I believe that saving the environment is of more importance either for all people or for wilderness or for the nature. The following paragraphs will vindicate my standpoint.
The first vital point to bear in mind is that cultivating in huge scales will cause not only destruction of natural resources and animals’ habitats but also lack of fertile soil. Initially, cultivating a lot of crops on a piece of land for many times causes the soil to be deprived of minerals, so the soil will not be fertilizing anymore. In addition, over irrigation will salinize the soil, which makes it tend not to be useful for cultivating in the future. Also, the natural compensation for these effects takes too long time in the comparison with human’s lifelong. On the other words, agriculture will definitely damage a large fraction of environment, which is the most precious inheritance of current generation for next generations. A conducted research on an instance piece of land in my country showed that after fifteen years of cultivating and irrigating the soil it was like a piece of barren land, although they added fertilizer to the soil frequently. Also in the simulated environment in a laboratory, an instance amount of that soil took more than eighty years long to be made up and come to roughly near its natural situation.
The second noteworthy reason is that the more food is available, the more population growth will happen. And the more population grows, the more food is needed. And this cycle continues until there is an explosion of population in the world and that time what will happen to so huge population? In my perspective, if governments interfere in making equilibrium in their peoples’ population and spend enough budget and time on it, they will not have to spend time and budget on providing the population with so huge amount of food sources that producing it damages our only habitat in the whole universe. For an instance, the China did not control its population at an opportune time, so their odd food has entered their diet in harsh circumstances in which there was not enough food and their outlandish diet not only makes the situation hard for some species but also causes the emerge of threatening and killing diseases which are common between human and animals.
To bring everything into conclusion, it seems rational to preserve the environment as more immaculate as possible rather than to produce more food causing detrimental damages to environment and having an exploding population.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 742, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'conducted research'.
Suggestion: Conducted research
...urrent generation for next generations. A conducted research on an instance piece of land in my coun...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 876, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...n hard for some species but also causes the emerge of threatening and killing diseases whi...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, second, so, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 15.1003584229 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 13.8261648746 145% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 43.0788530466 65% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 52.1666666667 134% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 8.0752688172 384% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2702.0 1977.66487455 137% => OK
No of words: 526.0 407.700716846 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13688212928 4.8611393121 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78901763229 4.48103885553 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92888230793 2.67179642975 110% => OK
Unique words: 261.0 212.727598566 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496197718631 0.524837075471 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 870.3 618.680645161 141% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 10.0 3.08781362007 324% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.94265232975 162% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 20.1344086022 134% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 75.4832629905 48.9658058833 154% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.210526316 100.406767564 142% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6842105263 20.6045352989 134% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.36842105263 5.45110844103 43% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 11.8709677419 118% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88709677419 20% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.340665216521 0.236089414692 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11137641821 0.076458572812 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0969969882327 0.0737576698707 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.226654901185 0.150856017488 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.106174698237 0.0645574589148 164% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 11.7677419355 141% => 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: 12.83 10.9000537634 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.01818996416 114% => OK
difficult_words: 138.0 86.8835125448 159% => 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: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.