In the future, it seems it will be more difficult to live on the Earth. Some people think more money should be spent on researching other planets to live, such as Mars. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement.
Global warming, as well as significantly changing weathers, are posing serious threats towards the human around the globe. Therefore, it is believed that spendings on exploring the space in order to identify a planet that people are able to live on should be maximized. I completely disagree with this view.
On the one hand, focusing on Earth-like planets is a long-term plan as even the excellent expert would not be able to guarantee how much time would be taken to make sure the possibility of settling down on another planet. Additionally, although people had made considerable strides in technology, it is apparently not enough to satisfy space exploring technological requirements.
Our achievements are significant, however, living on another planet is far-fetched. Meanwhile, people around the world have the ability to secure themselves via exploiting these such advanced inventions to alleviate the urgent environmental problems. By applying well-developed current devices, a substantial number of threats is likely to tackle effectively. Windmill farms, for instance, reduce the human's dependence on fossil fuels by providing a source of environmentally-friendly energy, helping to cope the fierce need for energy in all every area around the world.
On the other hand, as if the habitation of human become reality, such a small scale of the global population might be sufficient to adapt new environment. A vast number of inhabitants might be abandoned, living in a world in which is full of toxic waste and replete nature. Undoubtedly, searching for a livable planet is only intended for wealthy ones, not the entire human being.
In conclusion, the government should apply effective approaches to cure the environment rather than wasting money in search of a new habitable planet.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 402, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
...indmill farms, for instance, reduce the humans dependence on fossil fuels by providing...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, however, if, so, therefore, well, while, for instance, in conclusion, as well as, 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 : 1.0 10.4138276553 10% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 9.0 24.0651302605 37% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1529.0 1615.20841683 95% => OK
No of words: 281.0 315.596192385 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.44128113879 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09427095027 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.26090518341 2.80592935109 116% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 176.041082164 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.637010676157 0.561755894193 113% => OK
syllable_count: 486.9 506.74238477 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.384769539078 0% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.7297619679 49.4020404114 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.615384615 106.682146367 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6153846154 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.53846153846 7.06120827912 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.194539868173 0.244688304435 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0661774158257 0.084324248473 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0560506935339 0.0667982634062 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102979489847 0.151304729494 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0427073627622 0.056905535591 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.4159519038 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.13 8.58950901804 118% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 78.4519038076 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => 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.