Organized tour to remote areas and community is increasingly popular. Is it a positive or negative development for the local people and the environment?
Traveling to far-flung lands and immersing in the local culture or melting into the mountain landscape is a hot trend today. In my opinion, this evolution could have both advantageous and disadvantageous influences in the local and the environment. While organized tour to remote areas and community brings a huge quantity of benefits for the former such as creating a stable job, and enhancing the average income, the opposite of that have a profound effect on the latter.
To begin with, it has been widely demonstrated that tourism to isolated areas and communities will give rise to a positive impact on the locals such as providing a promising job market and increasing their revenue. In reality, appealing to the visitor play a crucial role in their own country in general and the local people in particular. As a result, thanks to the development of the tourism industry, local government can help people to escape the toughest situation such as starvation in isolated lands, which lead to the enhancement of incomes. A good example of this is Sapa, being one of the most difficult areas in Viet Nam. After ameliorating infrastructure such as the road network, creating many gorgeous sceneries and now is the best place to live. As a consequence, the locals are the tour guide, resulting in rising occupation opportunities, and improving revenue for indigenous people in Sapa.
On the other hand, it is obvious that, the waste has been released by visitors, triggering far-reaching consequences to the environment such as air pollution or infectious diseases. In the fact that some of the visitors could be not aware of the influences in the environment, the waste is dumped into the quarters. Without quick treatment, the air, water, and land, which were once pristine, will soon be polluted. This can be evidenced by Hong lake, an enormous quantity of waste in the side road after the celebration is organized.
In conclusion, while traveling to far-away areas have an advantageous effect on the local people such as providing stable employment, and enhancing income. The opposite has a dramatic impact on the environment such as waste. In my perspective, this development is of necessity and the local government must have a solution to radically tackle it.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-23 | chips_0506 | 81 | view |
| 2022-11-22 | chaupnh | 89 | view |
| 2022-08-29 | Lê Khánh Diệp | 89 | view |
| 2022-08-29 | Lê Khánh Diệp | 73 | view |
| 2022-07-21 | doquytuan | 73 | view |
- It is a natural process for animal species to become extinct e g Dinosaur dodos There is no reason why people should try to prevent this from happening Do you agree or disagree 78
- Traffic and housing problems in major cities could be solved by moving large companies and factories and their employees to the countryside To what extend do you agree or disagree with this opinion 73
- People living in large cities today face many problems in their everyday life What are these problems Should governments encourage people to move to smaller regional towns 56
- Nowadays a growing number of people with health problems are trying alternative medicines and treatments instead of visiting their usual doctor Do you think this is a positive or a negative development 61
- The charts below show the number of people in Europe who were affected by four types of noise by day and by night in cities and rural areas in 2007 82
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 199, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...r infectious diseases. In the fact that some of the visitors could be not aware of the infl...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, so, while, in conclusion, in general, in particular, such as, as a result, in my opinion, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 10.4138276553 144% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 41.998997996 129% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 8.3376753507 228% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1901.0 1615.20841683 118% => OK
No of words: 374.0 315.596192385 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08288770053 5.12529762239 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3976220399 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99546040475 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.526737967914 0.561755894193 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 608.4 506.74238477 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 2.52805611222 316% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.2548990932 49.4020404114 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.8125 106.682146367 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.375 20.7667163134 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.875 7.06120827912 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.25573825725 0.244688304435 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0693242945546 0.084324248473 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0619275463639 0.0667982634062 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141188973559 0.151304729494 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0781332976046 0.056905535591 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.0946893788 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 50.2224549098 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.4159519038 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 8.58950901804 108% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 78.4519038076 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.78957915832 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.