With the increasing demand for energy sources such as oil and gas, should people be looking for sources of oil and gas in remote and untouched places? Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages of damaging such areas?
Nowadays, it is true that the demand of people using natural sources is increasing. While I accept that there are both benefits and drawbacks of this issue, I would argue that it brings more advantages.
On the one hand, the option to looking for new remote places to have more sources is the main factor cause some drawbacks. Firstly, exploiting gas and oil from areas where have not been known may deplete natural resources at that places. This may lead environmental degradation. Secondly, human try to looking for more gas and oil can cause some problems of an ecological crisis which threatens the existence of a lot of animals that live in the natural environment. For example, when people try to find new areas to have more chance to exploit gas and oil, the environment of wild animals such as tigers, monkeys and snakes will be destroyed. This may lead to some of them dead, some of them may immigrate to live.
On the other hand, I believe that having more gas and oil for using have some benefits. First, the demand of people in using energy sources for life and manufacture to be responded. For instance, both of the food industry and heavy industry are needed gas as the most important factor for their manufacture.
Furthermore, the economy of rural areas where are exploit for sources becomes more developed. If people want to exploit sources in this area, they must invest to upgrade and expand transport provision which allows these places are given countless opportunities to be received investment from government.
In conclusion, the advantages of the exploiting the rural area to have more sources that have more than compensated for the drawbacks.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, furthermore, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, while, as to, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, such as, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 41.998997996 81% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1398.0 1615.20841683 87% => OK
No of words: 284.0 315.596192385 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.92253521127 5.12529762239 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62766664885 2.80592935109 94% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 176.041082164 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.514084507042 0.561755894193 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 441.0 506.74238477 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.384769539078 260% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.0967214519 49.4020404114 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.8571428571 106.682146367 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2857142857 20.7667163134 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.0714285714 7.06120827912 171% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => 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: 0.36274013975 0.244688304435 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.128466097498 0.084324248473 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0647876756234 0.0667982634062 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.191541004942 0.151304729494 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0716899027355 0.056905535591 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.0946893788 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 50.2224549098 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.4159519038 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.58950901804 99% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 78.4519038076 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.