Human activities since Industrial Revolution have brought enormous impact to the natural environment of the earth. The size of wilderness areas worldwide has declined dramatically over the last few centuries. It is understandable that many environmentalists call for legislation to preserve the remaining wilderness areas. I believe that such policies are not suitable for nations where people are still fighting against poverty or struggle to meet the basic demands of their citizens such as housing. On the other hand, for more developed nations, a policy focusing on conservation and sustainable development is more desirable than the proposed preservation legislation.
The preservation program would be neither sensible nor feasible in least developed countries where people suffer from poverty and other related social problems. Consider the opportunity costs of implementing such a policy. The land of the wilderness area could be used to build manufacturing factories that can provide jobs for the local people who lack the opportunities to create value via economic activities. Development economists agree that unemployment is the root problem that causes poverty, lack of education, malnutrition and high fertility rates among women. Any policy that would exacerbate unemployment should not be implemented. In fact, it would be politically impossible for the governments to develop such preservation programs that would deprive the people of valuable job opportunities. The democratically elected government officials have to consider the consequences of introducing a massively unpopular policy.
The preservation policy is not helpful for nations or regions where the supply of land is particularly limited. Take Hong Kong as an example. Due to the grave shortage of land for housing, the people in Hong Kong have to deal with outrageously high property prices and uncomfortably small living space. The preservation policy for wilderness areas in Hong Kong would take away the land that could have been used for housing and related infrastructure construction projects. Again such a policy would not receive public support and the government officials and the legislators have to consider the public opinions when making decisions on this issue.
Even for nations that do not have problems of poverty or housing shortage, the governments should probably consider a conservation program rather than the proposed preservation program. The difference between preservation and conservation is that the former provides absolutely no opportunities for any human activities in the wilderness areas whereas the latter policy allows development in a sustainable manner. For example, under a conservation program, the wilderness areas could be developed for low-pollution industry such as tourism. Low-density hotels may be built in the areas to attract visitors all over the world. Efforts would be made to minimise the impact on the environment without compromising the opportunities of future generations to benefit from the resources in this area. I think conservation policies are more likely to win support of the public as it can strike a balance between the need for development and the protection of the environment.
In conclusion, for nations where poverty, unemployment or shortage of housing are major problems, the proposed policy should not be adopted for the sake of the livelihood of the citizens. Even for more developed countries, a conservation policy focusing on sustainability is more reasonable and politically sensible for the legislators.
- The main benefit of the study of history is to dispel the illusion that people living now are significantly different from people who lived in earlier times 66
- Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developi 66
- The main benefit of the study of history is to dispel the illusion that people living now are significantly different from people who lived in earlier times 66
- 1.Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic regions. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of the year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed and cold enough, 59
- Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.Write a response in which you 16
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 327, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ll living space. The preservation policy for wilderness areas in Hong Kong would ...
^^
Line 7, column 390, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a sustainable manner" with adverb for "sustainable"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...as the latter policy allows development in a sustainable manner. For example, under a conservation prog...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, may, so, still, whereas, as to, for example, i think, in conclusion, in fact, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 33.0505617978 54% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 58.6224719101 97% => OK
Nominalization: 35.0 12.9106741573 271% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3042.0 2235.4752809 136% => OK
No of words: 537.0 442.535393258 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.66480446927 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81386128306 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.24552745538 2.79657885939 116% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 215.323595506 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.472998137803 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 972.0 704.065955056 138% => 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: 13.0 4.99550561798 260% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.1961730017 60.3974514979 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.68 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.48 23.4991977007 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.32 5.21951772744 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0670138845751 0.243740707755 27% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0225544899372 0.0831039109588 27% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0234472994934 0.0758088955206 31% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0417183379997 0.150359130593 28% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0280029290083 0.0667264976115 42% => 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: 16.0 14.1392134831 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.8420337079 68% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.55 12.1639044944 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 150.0 100.480337079 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.7820224719 136% => 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.