It is possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as South Pole, do you think the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantage?
As remote natural places that are expected to abound in variety of beautiful natural landscapes and resources are open and reachable to scientists and tourists now, there are some people that oppose such trend and claim its demerits. At some level, however, I still believe in this development does more good than harm.
First, it helps explore natural resources to be better of our lives. Any kind of resources, from oil to copper, are getting scarcer in recent decades as the increasing demand of rapidly developing economies as well exhausted excavation. In this condition, only these distant regions where they are rich in all sorts of mineral resources but still not be set foot in can keep satisfying our social advance. For instance, South Pole is known as the container of huge coal and gas reserve which can be exploited to cater for the use for all human beings and solve some extreme resources urgency in the globe.
In addition, people are given precious access to better know the earth and appreciate the beauty of nature. Love is based on understanding from the bottom of heart, which explains why city dwellers cannot treat our earth in a friendly way as they even haven’t see it as a whole. Only with the chance to sightsee these places in person can they raise the awareness of their identity as an earthling after marveling at the mystery of the nature and the happiness of harmonious communication between human and nature when they travel.
However, it should be noticed that the more people get into the distant unspoiled places, the more problems may be caused, especially in terms of local ecosystems. The environment that is untouched before in an original status is more fragile, which can be affected by over exploited and land-based resort activities.
To conclude, I approve that scientists and tourists’ visit can help tap potential natural resources and ensure more people have the chances to appreciate the beautiful scenes, only if they could travel responsibly and conserve the environment and improve the well-being of local people.
- Some people think about learning a foreign language but cannot use it frequently. What are the difficulties that people face while learning a foreign language? What can be done to overcome them? 90
- It is possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as South Pole, do you think the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantage? 70
- Some people think that parents should teach children how to be good member of society. Other, however, believe that school is the place to learn this.Discuss both views and give your own opinion. 60
- The diagram shows the stages in the process of bricks are manufactured for the construction industry which can be sketched in seven coherent steps 80
- The charts below show US spending patterns from 1966 to 1996 69
there are some people that oppose such trend
there are some people who oppose such trend
I still believe in this development does more good than harm.
I still believe that this development does more good than harm.
they are rich in all sorts of mineral resources but still not be set foot in
Description: can you re-write this sentence?
resources urgency in the globe.
resources which are urgent in the globe.
resources urgent in the globe.
Sentence: In this condition, only these distant regions where they are rich in all sorts of mineral resources but still not be set foot in can keep satisfying our social advance.
Description: The token in is not usually followed by a modal auxillary
Suggestion: Refer to in and can
Sentence: Only with the chance to sightsee these places in person can they raise the awareness of their identity as an earthling after marveling at the mystery of the nature and the happiness of harmonious communication between human and nature when they travel.
Error: sightsee Suggestion: No alternate word
flaws:
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 6.5 out of 9
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 12 15
No. of Words: 346 350
No. of Characters: 1688 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.313 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.879 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.547 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 124 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 88 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.833 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.999 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.337 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.64 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.035 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5