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?
Thanks to many technological advancements, the choice of travel destinations has been extended considerably even to some isolated areas involving the South Pole. However, this diversification has raised plenty of arguments around itself. Among those debates, I believe that the merits it brings back overwhelm some of its drawbacks.
On the one hand, there are many appealing reasons that account for the disapproval of going to outlying sites. First and foremost, faraway cites always hide formidable dangers on the grounds of their primeval characteristic. Therefore, choosing these places to visit as either tourists or members of scientific discoveries may not guarantee absolute safety, even leading to more severe health consequences. On top of that, environmental factors should also be taken into consideration otherwise they may soon be damaged. If tourism or research is developed in those distant locations, human impact on the habitat is inevitable, of which changing the initial biology is the worst case as it can lead to considerable destruction. For example, nowadays indiscriminate littering is a hot potato for many regions.
Nevertheless, I am still of the opinion that people should be given a chance to come to strange places that humans have yearned for long years. Firstly, doing research in remote natural environments can help scientists with finding out breakgrounds in distinctive fields, making great contributions to society. For example, the finding of the rapid melting of ice at the South Pole has become an alarm for society to take action as soon as possible. In addition, both residents and local governments can receive revenue from developing tourism. This may turn into a good resource for the economy as SaPa in Vietnam has done.
To recapitulate, individuals can get more benefits when trips to isolated natural destinations are more encouraged compared to some negative sides. However, the local authority had better add some rules to ensure the safety and tourists along with the ecosystem.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 14, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...otato for many regions. Nevertheless, I am still of the opinion that people sh...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, therefore, for example, in addition, on top of that
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 8.3376753507 48% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1724.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 318.0 315.596192385 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.4213836478 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04122356653 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 176.041082164 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.669811320755 0.561755894193 119% => OK
syllable_count: 553.5 506.74238477 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.8078509539 49.4020404114 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.75 106.682146367 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.875 20.7667163134 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5625 7.06120827912 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.190045600679 0.244688304435 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0494445929012 0.084324248473 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0434559109115 0.0667982634062 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0978847221971 0.151304729494 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0623581104634 0.056905535591 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.0946893788 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.99 8.58950901804 116% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 78.4519038076 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => 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.