It is almost universally accepted as a politically correct principle that whenever economy is in contradiction with natural resources reservation, the former should unconditionally recede to the latter. Considering the statement, it seems one should spare no effort to draw an abrupt conclusion that the corresponding laws and regulations should be executed to protect the wilderness even if there are some potential economic privileges. However, when thinking about this question, some specific conditions should take into considerations and their corresponding consequences should be evaluated as well. Different areas of diversified economic status quo may take different strategies to deal with this question.
If one area is comparatively less developed and economically falling behind, to boost local development and enhance the living standards should be considered by the local authorities as the first priority. If there are some possibilites that the local natural resources can be utilized as the offset for economic welfare, it is possible for the local government to initiate the development scheme. Thus, it becomes unnecessary to enforce a law to dogmatically protect the local wilderness. Take some areas in Inner Mongolia for example. Covering vast open areas in north China, Inner Mongolia was famous for its natural resources as pastures, forests and grasslands, while its local people were living in comparatively unsatisfactory conditions. In the late 1990s, the local government decided to develop the tourism industry and started to build travelling resorts. With the injection of investments looking for prospective profits and the arrival of visitors attracted by the appalling natural sceneries, local people's financial conditions started to improve, while the development changed the ecological system to some yet controllable extent.
However, if the local economic condition is already affluent and it is not so urgent to exploit the local wilderness for the exchange of economic benefits, the implementation of such laws for better natural reservations might be necessary. Yet, still, one needs to disinterestedly evaluate the local conditions, to see if it is possible to balance between the economic progress and natural sources reservation.
For example, as for big cities like New York, whose economic structure has become comparatively comprehensive and stable, the economic returns from exploiting the remaining wilderness, for instance, the Central Park, would be not only limited but also unnecessary, as it would only contribute little to the already active economy.
But for developing cities, if the development scheme can balance the reservations of the wilderness and reduce the side-effects to the local ecology system, it is still recommended to initiate the development. There are several successful cases in China, one of which is the development of Qixi, a suburb district close to Hangzhou, the capital city of Zhejiang Province. Its wetlands have been developed into natural parks and travelling resorts for tourists to spend their holidays and won tremendous success. One thing needs to mention, in 2010, after the release of a boxing-hit movie shot in Qixi, its popularity has thus enhanced and more people together with increasing revenue swarmed into the territory. Now, Qixi remains a beautiful natural park of wetland, and visitors can sail on boats to experience the wilderness, to spend some nights in local five-star hotels and to enjoy the starry night with breeze winds.
To sum up, when considering if it is necessary to implement laws to protect all the natural wilderness when there are some chances for local financial development, the specific conditions should be taken into consideration. To preserve the natural resources is politically correct, but it is not necessarily contradicting the local development. Economic progress sometimes can be mutually beneficial to natural reservations.
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position 79
- Some people suggest that it is wrong to give money to beggars asking for money on the street while others think that it is the right thing to do Which point of view do you think is correct and why 73
- Some parents forbid young children from owning smart phones cell phones with Internet access while others disagree and believe that they are important tools for keeping in touch Which point of view do you think is better and why 90
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 125, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'resources'' or 'resource's'?
Suggestion: resources'; resource's
...conomy is in contradiction with natural resources reservation, the former should uncondit...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 122, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... comparatively comprehensive and stable, the economic returns from exploiting the...
^^
Line 9, column 170, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'recommended initiating'.
Suggestion: recommended initiating
...o the local ecology system, it is still recommended to initiate the development. There are several succ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 355, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[9]
Message: The adverb 'sometimes' is usually put before the verb 'progress'.
Suggestion: sometimes progress
...dicting the local development. Economic progress sometimes can be mutually beneficial to natural r...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, may, so, still, thus, well, while, as for, for example, for instance, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 58.6224719101 123% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 12.9106741573 209% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3374.0 2235.4752809 151% => OK
No of words: 599.0 442.535393258 135% => OK
Chars per words: 5.632721202 5.05705443957 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94716853372 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1505994164 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 304.0 215.323595506 141% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507512520868 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 1088.1 704.065955056 155% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 11.0 3.10617977528 354% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.9987477968 60.3974514979 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.363636364 118.986275619 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.2272727273 23.4991977007 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.27272727273 5.21951772744 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 10.2758426966 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 5.13820224719 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.252341875729 0.243740707755 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0818841013768 0.0831039109588 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0459451698355 0.0758088955206 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141242606957 0.150359130593 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0224212938885 0.0667264976115 34% => 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: 18.7 14.1392134831 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 27.15 48.8420337079 56% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.1743820225 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.67 12.1639044944 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.75 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 181.0 100.480337079 180% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 11.8971910112 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.