Some people believe that to protect local environment, tourists should be banned in some areas whereas others think that change is inevitable and banning tourisms will have no benefits.
Discuss both opinions
Recent decades, the growing trend of making for attractive destinations is becoming an aggravating factor when local environment have not been preserved properly. Although many people think that the ideal of enacting new laws to deter tourists from entering some particular places will help local environment be better defended against be demolished, others said that the attempted travel bans is meaningless as this is an inevitable outcome of tourism industry.
There are a number of reasons why having the number of tourists under control in some particular places is believed to be the very thing for local nature. Some entering restrictions are necessary because it mitigates hordes of tourists. In fact, the more massive of number tourists visit an interesting place for pleasure and interest, the bigger amount of the untreated waste and rubbish released into the environment. Moreover, severe penalty associated with disclosing who have taken offense overtly can bring the local environment lots of benefits. As a result, this drastic attitude acts as a disincentive for the front they present as well as recidivism prevention.
Others argued that it is an unviable way to combat to local nature degradation. First, getting some places banned in visiting by tourists is compatible with interest in travelling to these places will tumble which causes a gloomy economic situation even recession. In fact, the hospitality industry will be greatly influenced because the company budget does not go round to come up with their labor force’s working hours and then leads to the bankruptcy. Moreover, the labor market has lots of workers who subsidy exclusively on the travelling trend. Therefore, economics gains in travelling decreases will transfer the national burden to individual.
Tourists are banned in some places which can be a boon to local environment and citizens but it will do more harm than good. Although the campaign of facing up to climate change and preserve natural environment is necessary, flourish an economy is more vital.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-10-17 | nhanluu79462 | 78 | view |
| 2021-10-10 | gianggiangvn | 89 | view |
| 2021-07-24 | bikram12 | 56 | view |
| 2021-07-03 | DQDang | 89 | view |
| 2020-08-26 | satyam mangroliya | 89 | view |
- As a result of tourism and the increasing number of people traveling there is a growing demand for more flights What problems does this have on the environment What measures could be taken 79
- Some people believe that to protect local environment tourists should be banned in some areas whereas others think that change is inevitable and banning tourisms will have no benefits Discuss both opinions 90
- Some people believe that nowadays we have too many choices To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement 73
- Many people believe that parents are not as close to their children as they used to be Suggest some reasons why this could be true 89
- Some people today spend too much money on their phones What do you think 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 502, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a subsidy'.
Suggestion: who is a subsidy
...r, the labor market has lots of workers who subsidy exclusively on the travelling trend. Th...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, moreover, so, then, therefore, well, in fact, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 13.1623246493 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 11.0 24.0651302605 46% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1732.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 324.0 315.596192385 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34567901235 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81564044638 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 176.041082164 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.604938271605 0.561755894193 108% => OK
syllable_count: 551.7 506.74238477 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 5.43587174349 18% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.8178524583 49.4020404114 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.714285714 106.682146367 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1428571429 20.7667163134 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.78571428571 7.06120827912 82% => 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: 0.294200982312 0.244688304435 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0902970547463 0.084324248473 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0875621563791 0.0667982634062 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.186384652351 0.151304729494 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0609399924763 0.056905535591 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.0946893788 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 50.2224549098 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.3001002004 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.4159519038 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.7 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 78.4519038076 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 9.78957915832 199% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 20.0 10.7795591182 186% => 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.