Forests destruction will accelerate the extinction of animals and ultimately mankind. For this reason, logging in the world's rainforests should be phased out over the next decade. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
In recent times, environmental protection has been taken into consideration on a global scale. Some bear a thought that people should minimize actively deforestation over the forthcoming years. In my opinion, I completely concur with those who are in favor of this view.
On the one hand, it is believed that rainforests conservation would reap certain benefits including the prevention of the drawbacks of the soil erosion and other disasters and providing the wildlife habitats for species and plants. First and foremost, by destroying forests continually, runoff rapidly flows into streams, elevating rivers levels and subjecting downstream villages, cities, and agricultural fields, This phenomenon gives rise to flood, landslide, drought, and erosion. Should this activity happen constantly, it will act as a precursor to some serious consequences, namely damaging badly the homeland of locals, the infrastructures surrounding, and crops. Besides, rainforests and similar environments furnish natural habitations for endangered animals and rare plants. Therefore, not only would the prevention of uncontrolled rainforest exploitations assist in the preservation of not-man-made houses for the whole inhabitants and trees but also ensure the availability of renewable resources such as timber, medicine plants, and nuts.
On the other hand, forests are the ideal places for training practical skills for youngsters, especially survival abilities in the feral environment. When adolescents are equipped with the essential knowledge, they may survive in such areas without food, medicine, and in the face of beasts and poisonous reptiles. For example, there are reality TV shows in which participants are delivered subsistence proficiencies in the wild nature. These programs also play a vital role in educating and conveying messages regarding environmental protection, forests, in particular, to either a large variety of learners and the audience from around the world.
In conclusion, I think that destructive forests should be shrunk because of the above-mentioned reasons. Governments, thus, need to enact feasible policies to control and limit this trend.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 38, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'rainforests'' or 'rainforest's'?
Suggestion: rainforests'; rainforest's
.... On the one hand, it is believed that rainforests conservation would reap certain benefit...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, if, may, regarding, so, therefore, thus, for example, i think, in conclusion, in particular, such as, in my opinion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 10.4138276553 173% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1851.0 1615.20841683 115% => OK
No of words: 317.0 315.596192385 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.83911671924 5.12529762239 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20722311203 2.80592935109 114% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 176.041082164 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.687697160883 0.561755894193 122% => OK
syllable_count: 565.2 506.74238477 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 0.809619238477 618% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.0200810238 49.4020404114 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.214285714 106.682146367 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6428571429 20.7667163134 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.5 7.06120827912 163% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.16343371233 0.244688304435 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0481047987716 0.084324248473 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0353014507515 0.0667982634062 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0871352423053 0.151304729494 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0301020955668 0.056905535591 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 13.0946893788 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 50.2224549098 64% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.89 12.4159519038 136% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.95 8.58950901804 127% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 78.4519038076 159% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.