ĐỀ 2: With the increasing demand for energy sources of oil and gas, people should look for sources of oil and gas in remote and untouched natural places. Do the advantages outweigh disadvantages of damaging such areas? (Surroundings)
It is true that humans should search for new sources of oil and gas in wilderness areas due to the increasing demand for energy sources of fossil fuels. Despite some obvious advantages of this trend, I would argue that these are outweighed by the disadvantages.
On the one hand, there is one main reason why exploring new sources of fossil fuel in new areas is necessary. It is true that the amount of fossil fuel is limited and can run out in the future. As a result, there might be not enough energy sources to meet the demand of the increasing population if we only exploit those in the existing places. According to the research of Ha Noi University of Natural resources and Environment in 2018, the amount of fossil fuels exploited was a quarter of that of the last decade. Therefore, it is essential to look for more sources of gas and oil in remote areas that are ideal places to search for these types of energy.
On the other hand, I believe that the drawbacks are far more noticeable than the aforementioned advantage. One reason for this view is that exploiting the new areas to look for sources of fossil fuels imposes negative impacts on ecosystems. This can pose a threat to the habitats of wildlife, deforestation, as a consequence of climate change. If these issues happen, humans will have to cope with natural disasters including floods, droughts, and acid rain. Another reason is that if people keep looking for ff in places having nó inhabitants, it will put a burden on the national budget. In fact, not every country is wealthy enough to pay for various arising expenditures such as maintenance costs and construction. As a result, instead of looking for sources of these types of non-renewable energy, it is much more vital to generate alternative resources including solar energy and wind power.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the disadvantages of this trend are more significant than the advantages.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 660, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...es to search for these types of energy. On the other hand, I believe that the dr...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, look, so, therefore, as to, in conclusion, in fact, such as, as a result, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 24.0651302605 116% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1609.0 1615.20841683 100% => OK
No of words: 334.0 315.596192385 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.81736526946 5.12529762239 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27500489853 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79764586806 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 176.041082164 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508982035928 0.561755894193 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 511.2 506.74238477 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 26.014867544 49.4020404114 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 107.266666667 106.682146367 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2666666667 20.7667163134 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.13333333333 7.06120827912 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.381791499864 0.244688304435 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111423286388 0.084324248473 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.129427081689 0.0667982634062 194% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.221305449298 0.151304729494 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.129784345502 0.056905535591 228% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.0946893788 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 50.2224549098 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.3001002004 95% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.4159519038 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.58950901804 98% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 78.4519038076 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.