In underdeveloped countries, tourism has disadvantages and can be said the opposite as well. Discuss your opinions and give examples.
Recently, tourism has sparked an ongoing controversy, which inevitably leads to a moot question “is it advantageous in undeveloped countries?”. Whereas it is a widely held view that strengthening the tourism industry is highly beneficial, I will discuss controversial aspects of that throughout this essay.
From the socioeconomic standpoint, the influx of tourists is bound up inextricably with foreign exchange, which indicates they lead to both economic development and cultural interactions. As a well-known example, a longitudinal study conducted by eminent scientists in 2014 demonstrates the relationship between travel and social interchange as well as an exponential increase in the income. Their academic criticism was impressive. Researchers, nevertheless, paid heed to GDP, poverty reduction, and a better cultural understanding alike. Consequently, my empirical evidence presented thus far supports the contention that the likelihood of the growth of tourism is correlated positively with not only annual revenue but also cultural communications.
From the socioeconomic standpoint, the influx of tourism is bound up inextricably with potential revenue, which indicates they lead to both job opportunities and economic prosperity. As a well-known example, a longitudinal study conducted by eminent scientists in 2014 demonstrates the relationship between social welfare and higher life standards as well as an exponential increase in foreign exchange. Their academic criticism was impressive. Researchers, nevertheless, paid heed to international cooperation, social interactions, and globalization alike. Besides, this criterion is an indispensable part of modern lifestyle. Consequently, my empirical evidence presented thus far supports the contention that the likelihood of thriving tourism industry is correlated positively with not only national sovereignty but also cultural diversity.
Within the realm of the environment, without the slightest doubt, negative consequences of tourism growth attribute to environmental catastrophe, in that it would come down to threatening wildlife, habitats, and historic sites. A salient example of such attribution is mass tourism, which is a cause for concern since it was mistaken to take surveillance for granted. Had there been a paradigm shift earlier, scholars might have had the opportunity to pinpoint national heritage problems. Likewise, hardly had they confined their attention to littering, environmental contamination, and even adverse effects of western culture. Besides, this criterion is an indispensable part of modern lifestyle. Hence, it is reasonable to infer the pivotal role of ecotourism policies.
To conclude, as for myself, as the saying goes “all’s well that ends well,” after analyzing what elaborated above, I entirely believe that the advantages of tourism are of more significance.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 84, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...oes 'all's well that ends well,' after analyzing what elaborated above,...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, consequently, hence, if, likewise, nevertheless, so, then, thus, well, whereas, as for, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.5418719212 161% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 6.10837438424 49% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 8.36945812808 119% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 5.94088669951 185% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 20.9802955665 124% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 31.9359605911 163% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 5.75862068966 260% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2495.0 1207.87684729 207% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 409.0 242.827586207 168% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.10024449878 5.00649968141 122% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49708221141 3.92707691288 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.55499709087 2.71678728327 131% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 139.433497537 158% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.540342298289 0.580463131201 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 778.5 379.143842365 205% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.57093596059 121% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.6157635468 195% => OK
Article: 5.0 1.56157635468 320% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 0.931034482759 430% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 3.65517241379 192% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 12.6551724138 158% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.5024630542 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.9355397121 50.4703680194 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.75 104.977214359 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.45 20.9669160288 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.9 7.25397266985 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.12807881773 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 6.9802955665 172% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 2.75862068966 109% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 2.91625615764 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0884981209772 0.242375264174 37% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0227766953635 0.0925447433944 25% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.026366969228 0.071462118173 37% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0566061110359 0.151781067708 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0184368398737 0.0609392437508 30% => 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: 17.5 12.6369458128 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 25.8 53.1260098522 49% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 10.9458128079 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 18.1 11.5310837438 157% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.03 8.32886699507 120% => OK
difficult_words: 140.0 55.0591133005 254% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 9.94827586207 171% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.3980295567 96% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 10.5123152709 171% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 77.7777777778 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 70.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.