The proposition that natural sites should be protected by the law in nations is reasonable under certain circumstances. On the other hand, it might overlook the multifaceted roles of nations, for example, attaining economic achievements and improving the quality of life of the people.
Admittedly, protecting the natural resources is one of the most crucial factor for nations. The ramifications of global warming is growing severe and causes the extinction of many species. As the severeity of global warming grows faster, lots of developed countries strive to minimize the negative impact of the modernization, for instance holding international conferences and forums about sustainable development every year and passing laws of protecting wilderness environments. In particular, the aboriginal areas in Australia, is utterly protected by the law of Australian government. The law constrains the number of visitors a day and only professional tour guides and companies can operate tour programs for international visitors. The government guarantees that nobody can destroy the the wilderness areas and local aboriginal culture in law. Australian people believe that it is our duty to preserve limited natural resources and remain them for future generations.
However, the claim might not always be reasonable in certain cases. Historically, there are some cases that prioritize achieving economic goals rather than preserving environmental sustainability. For example, in 2018, South Korea developed specific wilderness areas in Gariwang Mountain, where is the habit of many wild species, to hold Pyeongchang Winter Olympic. Because of the winter olympic, Pyeongchang, one of the smallest city in South Korea, successfully attracted international visitors. It revitalized the local economy by organizing the city development plan for the Olympic that includes building tourist accommodations, transporations, and ammenities. It not only improved the economy of Pyeongchang, but also enhanced the reputation of South Korea.
In conclusion, it might not always be reasonable to protect wilderness areas in law. The government should consider the economic and social roles as well to satisfy the people in nation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 791, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...ment guarantees that nobody can destroy the the wilderness areas and local aboriginal c...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 791, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...ment guarantees that nobody can destroy the the wilderness areas and local aboriginal c...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, so, well, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in particular, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.5258426966 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 33.0505617978 36% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 58.6224719101 67% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1898.0 2235.4752809 85% => OK
No of words: 327.0 442.535393258 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.80428134557 5.05705443957 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.55969084622 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.26333368855 2.79657885939 117% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 215.323595506 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.559633027523 0.4932671777 113% => OK
syllable_count: 601.2 704.065955056 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => 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: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.9343513662 60.3974514979 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.647058824 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2352941176 23.4991977007 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.70588235294 5.21951772744 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.265442505723 0.243740707755 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0811503095646 0.0831039109588 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0531525500961 0.0758088955206 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.166303915304 0.150359130593 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0339212996003 0.0667264976115 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 48.8420337079 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.36 12.1639044944 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.08 8.38706741573 120% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 100.480337079 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 11.8971910112 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.7820224719 136% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.