It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environment, such as South pole.
Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?
Advances in a multitude of fields have enabled scientists and tourists to access far-flung natural regions, such as the South Pole. While this development has several upsides, they are eclipsed by the negatives, as will be elucidated in the following essay.
Concerning the gains, proponents of the development highlight its facilitation to expanding humans’ understanding of the world. Traveling to areas that were previously inaccessible is the precursor to further exploratory activities, such as collecting samples for research into local ecosystems and available resources. Derived information can factor in the utilization of these areas, not only for tourism or resources but also long-term settlement. Furthermore, this development provides an encouraging start, catalyzing innovations in various fields such as material science and transportation. For instance, adaptation to the extreme cold of the South Pole and navigating the continent necessitate novel insulating materials and vehicles that are compatible with slippery terrains.
Having examined the aforementioned benefits, there are dangerous pitfalls that need shedding light on. First and foremost, focusing on enabling trips to far-off regions inevitably diverts current resources from solving more urgent issues, such as poverty and famine. What is more, there is the risk of pollution and overexploitation once access to these remote areas has been established, as seen in the deforestation of several formally pristine jungles in Asia. However, the most lethal repercussion roots in disturbances to the formerly isolated areas. Human activities in the South Pole, for instance, have been warned to release dormant ancient bacteria and viruses and a surplus amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Compounded with current pandemics and global warming, these are guaranteed to wreak havoc.
Considering both aspects, it is clear that albeit meritorious in certain ways, traveling to far-flung areas is bound with overwhelming disadvantages, including diluting current efforts to tackle urgent problems, pollution, and incalculable damage by potent pathogens and greenhouse gases.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-12-02 | lucluc | 73 | view |
| 2021-10-06 | buiminhduc | 87 | view |
| 2021-07-13 | anna103 | 89 | view |
| 2021-07-01 | Dave Skylark | 78 | view |
| 2021-06-23 | Quân Lê 2020 | 89 | view |
- The practice of illegally hunting wild animals continues to cause concern in many countries particularly developing countries What are the causes of such hunting What are the effects on the animals and on the wider human society in these countries and bey 89
- Some people think that children should begin their formal education at a very early age Others think they should begin after 7 years of age Discuss both views and give your own opinion 84
- Some people believe that a country will benefit greatly if its students study abroad To what extent do you agree or disagree 84
- It is more important to spend public money on promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to spend it on treatment of people who are already ill To what extent do you agree or disagree 89
- Many students find it difficult to concentrate or pay attention in school What are the reasons What could be done to solve this problem 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 290, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... potent pathogens and greenhouse gases.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, so, while, for instance, such as, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 7.85571142285 38% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 10.4138276553 144% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 24.0651302605 50% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1859.0 1615.20841683 115% => OK
No of words: 312.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.95833333333 5.12529762239 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16784566187 2.80592935109 113% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 176.041082164 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.663461538462 0.561755894193 118% => OK
syllable_count: 579.6 506.74238477 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.8066061107 49.4020404114 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.785714286 106.682146367 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2857142857 20.7667163134 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.14285714286 7.06120827912 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.205784480474 0.244688304435 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0580831037828 0.084324248473 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0582405853459 0.0667982634062 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117985652698 0.151304729494 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0781812914672 0.056905535591 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 13.0946893788 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 23.77 50.2224549098 47% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.58 12.4159519038 142% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.71 8.58950901804 136% => OK
difficult_words: 138.0 78.4519038076 176% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.78957915832 128% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 10.7795591182 167% => 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.