Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.
In recent years the topic of deforestation and the dwindling natural reserves in many developed countries has garnered much media attention. Many argue that states should do more to prevent the destruction of the few remaining pockets of wildlife even if these could be developed for economic gain. Nevertheless, while preserving the environment in important, so is the welfare of a nation’s citizens. As such the government should not blindly protect any areas of wilderness from development, but rather strive to find a middle ground that will maximize the wellbeing of its residents.
Undoubtedly there are benefits in preserving forests. Their ecosystems are the natural habitat of a panoply of species on which we depend for our subsistence. Their trees convert harmful carbon dioxide into the salubrious oxygen which we breathe. Nevertheless it is hard to estimate how this compares with the benefit derived from the wages of thousands of potential employees tasked with clearing a forest. Perhaps those employed would otherwise succumb to hunger or the many other threats of penury. As such it is important to weigh all logical considerations when considering protecting areas of wildlife and pursue a balanced policy.
Additionally, the economic development of various natural areas could in fact serve to help preserve other reserves. The tax that can be collected from private companies to taking advantage of a state’s natural resources, can be used to help protect other wildlife areas left in their natural state. Overall this could prove to be beneficial to a nations biodiversity.
Nevertheless, many would argue that the damage done by economic development is irreversible. Once species become extinct they cannot be brought back and, in practice, once destroyed forests do not come back. While there is merit to this argument it fails to account for many recent developments in agricultural technology. With the help of scientific development, many species once considered extinct have successfully been brought back and thanks for horticulture, many forests resurrected. Thus, while in 1990 forests covered less than 25% of France’s territory, this figure has grown to well over 30% in 2019. Science has proved that few things in life are truly irreversible.
It is dangerous to completely discount the benefits of wildlife preservation, yet these should not blind us to the equally important contributions made by economic development. Rejecting one completely for the other may in either case lead to our ultimate downfall. As with many things in life moderation is key, a responsible government must therefore weigh the benefits of each and conduct its policy in a balanced manner that will maximize social welfare.
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain. 83
- Should teachers' salary be based on students' academic performance? 83
- Should humans only save species which are at risk of extinction because of human activities? 70
- People's attitudes are determined more by their immediate situation or surroundings than by society as a whole. 66
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in a way no speaker ever could. 16
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 248, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Nevertheless,
...the salubrious oxygen which we breathe. Nevertheless it is hard to estimate how this compare...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 353, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'nations'' or 'nation's'?
Suggestion: nations'; nation's
... this could prove to be beneficial to a nations biodiversity. Nevertheless, many wo...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, may, nevertheless, so, therefore, thus, well, while, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 58.6224719101 104% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2337.0 2235.4752809 105% => OK
No of words: 431.0 442.535393258 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.4222737819 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55637350225 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04913705366 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 243.0 215.323595506 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.563805104408 0.4932671777 114% => OK
syllable_count: 731.7 704.065955056 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.8655323658 60.3974514979 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.227272727 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5909090909 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.13636363636 5.21951772744 60% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.325871173573 0.243740707755 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0799455169061 0.0831039109588 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0879510861982 0.0758088955206 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.180579193772 0.150359130593 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.135464945181 0.0667264976115 203% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 100.480337079 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.