It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environment, such as the South Pole. Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?
With the development and advancement of technology, numerous isolated destinations that were previously inaccessible such as the South pole are now within reach of human beings. While there is no denying that traveling far-away brings about plenty of advantages to both tourism and science, these demerits can not be overshadowed by its demerits.
On the one hand, exploring new regions, especially remote areas, facilitates human’s getting deep insights on wildlife, considering the climate, rare animals and also their habitats. As a matter of fact, individuals in this age and days are able to go sightseeing around the home of polar bears, for instance, and also other exotic species instead of having to keep them in captivity only for the purpose of entertainment. Moreover, being capable of visiting unknown places significantly sheds light on new discoveries of mysterious phenomena as well as current scientific studies regarding the issues around climate change, global warming, or the melting of ice.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that tourism activities pose serious dangers to the natural environment. Not only the transportation of humans to such distant areas but also the construction of facilities and infrastructure generates a big amount of carbon dioxide and even other emissions. This indeed paves the way for the destruction of natural resources and contributes to severe natural disasters such as acid rain and global warming. Therefore, not long after that there will be no more places remaining intact in the entire world due to enormous efforts put into such industries. Explorers can also be infected by strange viruses as well as catch diseases in places with extreme conditions. Safety for travelers is not certainly ensured as they can easily be attacked by wild animals that are beyond the government’s control.
In conclusion, despite the fact that traveling to remote regions acts as a key to more understanding of the natural environment, it has yet been able to guarantee the safety of tourists and scientists. This, in fact, gives rise to destructive consequences by posing threats to biodiversity and doing harm to natural habitats. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the aforementioned issue is at the expense of greater drawbacks.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-05-19 | Chen ni | 89 | view |
| 2021-05-28 | Lê Thu Hiền | 73 | view |
- the charts below show the main methods of transportation for people travelling to one university for work or study in 2004 and 2009 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 84
- People nowadays sleep less than they used to in the past What do you think is the reason behind this What are the effects on individuals and people around them 78
- The table below gives information about changes in modes of travel in England between 1985 and 2000 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- The diagram below shows the process by which bricks are manufactured for the building industry 78
- It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environment such as the South Pole Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages 89
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, moreover, regarding, so, therefore, well, while, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, no doubt, such as, as a matter of fact, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 7.0 200% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 1.00243902439 399% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 14.0 6.8 206% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 7.0 3.15609756098 222% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 16.0 5.60731707317 285% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 33.7804878049 172% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 3.97073170732 252% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1931.0 965.302439024 200% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 363.0 196.424390244 185% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31955922865 4.92477711251 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3649236973 3.73543355544 117% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04572085809 2.65546596893 115% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 106.607317073 210% => Less unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.617079889807 0.547539520022 113% => OK
syllable_count: 610.2 283.868780488 215% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.45097560976 117% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 1.53170731707 261% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 0.0 4.33902439024 0% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 3.36585365854 208% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 8.94146341463 157% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.4926829268 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.7637441968 43.030603864 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.928571429 112.824112599 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.9285714286 22.9334400587 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.2142857143 5.23603664747 233% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 3.70975609756 162% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 1.13902439024 615% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.09268292683 24% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216092961762 0.215688989381 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0620853523922 0.103423049105 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0545108637771 0.0843802449381 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119647074466 0.15604864568 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0391811713547 0.0819641961636 48% => 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: 16.6 13.2329268293 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 61.2550243902 61% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.51609756098 172% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 10.3012195122 138% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 11.4140731707 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.1 8.06136585366 125% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 40.7170731707 295% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.4329268293 136% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.9970731707 109% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, moreover, regarding, so, therefore, well, while, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, no doubt, such as, as a matter of fact, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 7.0 200% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 1.00243902439 399% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 14.0 6.8 206% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 7.0 3.15609756098 222% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 16.0 5.60731707317 285% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 33.7804878049 172% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 3.97073170732 252% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1931.0 965.302439024 200% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 363.0 196.424390244 185% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31955922865 4.92477711251 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3649236973 3.73543355544 117% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04572085809 2.65546596893 115% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 106.607317073 210% => Less unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.617079889807 0.547539520022 113% => OK
syllable_count: 610.2 283.868780488 215% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.45097560976 117% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 1.53170731707 261% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 0.0 4.33902439024 0% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.482926829268 414% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 3.36585365854 208% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 8.94146341463 157% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.4926829268 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.7637441968 43.030603864 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.928571429 112.824112599 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.9285714286 22.9334400587 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.2142857143 5.23603664747 233% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 3.70975609756 162% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 1.13902439024 615% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.09268292683 24% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216092961762 0.215688989381 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0620853523922 0.103423049105 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0545108637771 0.0843802449381 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119647074466 0.15604864568 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0391811713547 0.0819641961636 48% => 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: 16.6 13.2329268293 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 61.2550243902 61% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.51609756098 172% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 10.3012195122 138% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 11.4140731707 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.1 8.06136585366 125% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 40.7170731707 295% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.4329268293 136% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.9970731707 109% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.0658536585 108% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.