The actions of the humankind during the past few decades, has by far made this time the worst period for our environment. We have polluted the air, the water and the soil, hunted countless animals, destroyed the ecosystem, and made wildlife impossible in many areas of the world. In short, we have ruined the natures hierarchy, and we have done it for one reason: we thought the progress in economy and industry is worth the sacrifice. But there was a point when some people saw that this is a malfunctioning cycle, and needs to be readjusted somewhere - nations should start paying attention to the environment, and since fixing the ruined jungles and forests and other natural landscapes will probably take hundreds of years, we should take extra care of the remaining parts.
Having all this in mind, the statement above is making a good point. Many people, from environmental activists to ordinary people who just care about the nature and wild life, would undoubtedly defend this statement and agree that governments should pass laws to preserve the remaining wilderness by any means possible. They would argue that the earth, the mother nature, has nourished us beyond our expectations, while in return we have torn it apart. Since no other organization would have the power to do so, it would logically be the governments’ responsibility to pass laws to preserve the remaining wilderness, before they are occupied and destroyed by factories or incorporation's seeking profit.
But, looking deeper down the statement, there are many things that should be defined before passing such rules. For example, there are for sure countries in Africa which can not provide enough food for their people, and have acres of “wilderness areas” preserved, because people are unable to use them properly. in this case, there should be groups of experts studying the area, to define the fine line between the areas that should be preserved, and the areas that could be put to use in order to provide people’s basic needs. The other case, are the national parks, which contrary to public beliefs do have economic gain. So not all economic gains should be considered against preserving the nature.
So, although I believe that nature should be preserved from those who plan to destroy it for economic gain, I think there are expectations to add to the above statement. While the nature should be preserved “natural”, we should understand that the people of “today” should be respected as much as the people of “tomorrow”. Environmental motto's and quotes sound very pleasing when they preach about keeping the nature for the future generations, but they largely forget that we are not providing enough food for the present population. Let’s preserve the natural wilderness areas, but let’s do it correctly.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 310, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'natures'' or 'nature's'?
Suggestion: natures'; nature's
...the world. In short, we have ruined the natures hierarchy, and we have done it for one ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 313, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
...people are unable to use them properly. in this case, there should be groups of ex...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'if', 'look', 'so', 'while', 'for example', 'i think', 'in short']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.20233463035 0.240241500013 84% => OK
Verbs: 0.190661478599 0.157235817809 121% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0836575875486 0.0880659088768 95% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0369649805447 0.0497285424764 74% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0466926070039 0.0444667217837 105% => OK
Prepositions: 0.105058365759 0.12292977631 85% => OK
Participles: 0.0583657587549 0.0406280797675 144% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.75775007048 2.79330140395 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0291828793774 0.030933414821 94% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.101167315175 0.0997080785238 101% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0350194552529 0.0249443105267 140% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0175097276265 0.0148568991511 118% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2822.0 2732.02544248 103% => OK
No of words: 463.0 452.878318584 102% => OK
Chars per words: 6.09503239741 6.0361032391 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63868890866 4.58838876751 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.380129589633 0.366273622748 104% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.24838012959 0.280924506359 88% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.177105831533 0.200843997647 88% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.127429805616 0.132149295362 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75775007048 2.79330140395 99% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 219.290929204 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.533477321814 0.48968727796 109% => OK
Word variations: 62.9734560813 55.4138127331 114% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.6194690265 82% => OK
Sentence length: 27.2352941176 23.380412469 116% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.001730083 59.4972553346 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 166.0 141.124799967 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.2352941176 23.380412469 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.470588235294 0.674092028746 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.94800884956 81% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.21349557522 38% => OK
Readability: 52.0733070766 51.4728631049 101% => OK
Elegance: 1.33333333333 1.64882698954 81% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.365887036697 0.391690518653 93% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.135841941209 0.123202303941 110% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.060155300806 0.077325440228 78% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.559544181146 0.547984918172 102% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.136991724881 0.149214159877 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.157618005823 0.161403998019 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0497834681743 0.0892212321368 56% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.469074991757 0.385218514788 122% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0612320417209 0.0692045440612 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.270654732212 0.275328986314 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0322273384811 0.0653680567796 49% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.4325221239 86% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.30420353982 132% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88274336283 20% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 9.0 7.22455752212 125% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 3.66592920354 164% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.70907079646 37% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 13.5995575221 118% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations to cover all aspects.