The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg. Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions. Since they were declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2004, development along the coastal wetlands has been prohibited. Now local development interests are lobbying for the West Lansburg council to allow an access road to be built along the edge of wetlands. Neighboring Eastern Carpenteria, which had a similar sanctuary, has seen its sea otter population decline since the repeal of its sanctuary status in 1978. In order to preserve the region's biodiversity and ensure a healthy environment, the West Lansburg council should not allow the road to be built."
The letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News raises a crucial concern about the potential impact of constructing an access road along the edge of wetlands on the region's biodiversity and environmental health. While the suggestion holds merit, a comprehensive evaluation requires a deeper understanding of the nuances involved. This essay explores various factors and evidence, including specific examples and hypothetical scenarios, to highlight the implications of constructing the access road. By thoughtfully considering regional similarities, historical contexts, and community involvement, we can make informed decisions that preserve biodiversity while addressing development needs.
To begin, it is essential to examine the similarities and differences between Eastern Carpenteria and West Lansburg. Suppose we find that both regions have relatively similar environmental conditions, with distinct wetland ecosystems and shared challenges. In that case, the comparison becomes more relevant. However, a comprehensive environmental analysis must also identify any contrasting factors that could influence the road's impact on biodiversity. For instance, West Lansburg may have a more significant number of endangered species that rely on the wetlands for their survival, making the construction of an access road riskier in this context. Such specific examples will help draw more accurate parallels and lead to well-informed decisions.
Moreover, delving into the historical context is crucial for understanding the implications of sanctuary repeal on Eastern Carpenteria's biodiversity. Let us imagine a scenario where the sanctuary's repeal in Eastern Carpenteria led to widespread habitat destruction due to a lack of regulatory oversight. This hypothetical situation could have had far-reaching consequences on the region's ecosystem, causing a decline in biodiversity. Now, if West Lansburg has strong conservation measures and a history of preserving its natural habitats, the potential impact of the access road may be less severe. By exploring such scenarios, we can anticipate the potential consequences and act accordingly to mitigate adverse effects.
The attitude of the West Lansburg community towards environmental preservation is a significant determinant of the road's impact. Let us consider a hypothetical scenario where the community actively participates in conservation efforts, having implemented clean-up drives and reforestation projects. In this case, the construction of the access road could be strategically planned to minimize ecological disruption, ensuring that it aligns with community values and sustainability goals. Conversely, if the community exhibits a lack of environmental consciousness, the road's construction might necessitate stringent measures to protect biodiversity. By acknowledging such scenarios, we can tailor the decision-making process to accommodate the community's environmental commitment.
In conclusion, the letter's argument to prevent the construction of the access road along the wetlands is significant, emphasizing the importance of preserving biodiversity and ensuring a healthy environment. A well-rounded assessment of regional similarities, historical contexts, and community engagement is vital in making informed decisions that strike a balance between development and environmental preservation. West Lansburg must embrace a coherent and precise approach, backed by up-to-date evidence, to ensure that the proposed access road aligns with the principles of sustainability and responsible development, safeguarding both biodiversity and community interests.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-28 | Gnyana | 58 | view |
| 2023-08-07 | Ataraxia-m | 16 | view |
| 2023-08-07 | Ataraxia-m | 33 | view |
| 2023-08-05 | Ataraxia-m | 66 | view |
| 2023-07-20 | BusariMoruf | 47 | view |
- The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment 62
- The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions Since they were declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2004 development along the coastal wetlands has been prohi 66
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station Over the past year our late night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news During this time period most of the complain 83
- The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment 50
- The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors Techcorporation is our top pick for investment this term We urge all of our clients to invest in this new company For the first time in ten years a company that has developed satellite te 64
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 170, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
... road along the edge of wetlands on the regions biodiversity and environmental health. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 381, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
...ve had far-reaching consequences on the regions ecosystem, causing a decline in biodive...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 569, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'roads'' or 'road's'?
Suggestion: roads'; road's
...ack of environmental consciousness, the roads construction might necessitate stringen...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'letters'' or 'letter's'?
Suggestion: letters'; letter's
...ental commitment. In conclusion, the letters argument to prevent the construction of...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, conversely, however, if, may, moreover, so, well, while, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 19.6327345309 36% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3146.0 2260.96107784 139% => OK
No of words: 499.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 6.30460921844 5.12650576532 123% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72634191566 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.5798741225 2.78398813304 129% => OK
Unique words: 253.0 204.123752495 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507014028056 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 990.0 705.55239521 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.0 1.59920159681 125% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.4071640536 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.782608696 119.503703932 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6956521739 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.47826086957 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.20758483034 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0829340881048 0.218282227539 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0257503173048 0.0743258471296 35% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.029454795397 0.0701772020484 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0536972444339 0.128457276422 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0236554558556 0.0628817314937 38% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.1 14.3799401198 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 16.32 48.3550499002 34% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.1628742515 181% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.197005988 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 19.26 12.5979740519 153% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.34 8.32208582834 124% => OK
difficult_words: 179.0 98.500998004 182% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 170, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
... road along the edge of wetlands on the regions biodiversity and environmental health. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 381, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
...ve had far-reaching consequences on the regions ecosystem, causing a decline in biodive...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 569, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'roads'' or 'road's'?
Suggestion: roads'; road's
...ack of environmental consciousness, the roads construction might necessitate stringen...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'letters'' or 'letter's'?
Suggestion: letters'; letter's
...ental commitment. In conclusion, the letters argument to prevent the construction of...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, conversely, however, if, may, moreover, so, well, while, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 19.6327345309 36% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3146.0 2260.96107784 139% => OK
No of words: 499.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 6.30460921844 5.12650576532 123% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72634191566 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.5798741225 2.78398813304 129% => OK
Unique words: 253.0 204.123752495 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507014028056 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 990.0 705.55239521 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.0 1.59920159681 125% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.4071640536 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.782608696 119.503703932 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6956521739 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.47826086957 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.20758483034 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0829340881048 0.218282227539 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0257503173048 0.0743258471296 35% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.029454795397 0.0701772020484 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0536972444339 0.128457276422 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0236554558556 0.0628817314937 38% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.1 14.3799401198 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 16.32 48.3550499002 34% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.1628742515 181% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.197005988 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 19.26 12.5979740519 153% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.34 8.32208582834 124% => OK
difficult_words: 179.0 98.500998004 182% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.