Q9. With the increasing demand for energy sources of oil and gas, people should look for sources of oil and gas in remote and untouched natural places. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of damaging such areas?
Recently the issue of resources has become the subject of heated debate. Some people assert that although there are some disadvantages to developing untouched land in order to produce fossil fuels, such as crude oil and gas, these are exceeded by the advantages, while others argue otherwise. Personally, I wholeheartedly agree with the former stance. In the following essay, both views will be discussed before a conclusion is reached with my opinion.
On the one hand, those who claim that devotion to gaining fossil fuels should be discouraged do so for several reasons. Proponents of this argument insist that the construction of a multitude of facilities helping developers to produce fossil fuels results in environmental degradation. To be more specific, a large number of natural habitats that play a vital role in the ecosystem can be destructed, which can even exert a detrimental influence on human beings who are on the top of food chains. In addition, exploiting natural land in a bid to secure fossil fuels accelerates the speed of global warming giving rise to climate change that hinders people from leading a high quality of life.
My opinion, however, is that mankind should try to obtain fossil fuels by developing undamaged land. Perhaps the most compelling reason is that fossil fuels are economical given that generating renewable energy sources, such as tidal power and solar power, costs a fortune. Furthermore, to provide a hypothetical example, if it were not for making an effort to create fossil fuels, humans would be more likely to suffer from a lack of resources that can prevent people from facilitating various aspects of our life, from driving personal vehicles to operating businesses. In light of the above, I find these more persuasive.
In conclusion, it is undeniable that there are a variety of opinions about this topic. However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, I fully support the view that the benefits of using natural spaces to acquire energy sources surpass the drawbacks for the reasons discussed above.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 309, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...ental degradation. To be more specific, a large number of natural habitats that play a vital role...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 127, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a careful manner" with adverb for "careful"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, I fully support the view that the bene...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, so, while, in addition, in conclusion, such as
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 : 2.0 10.4138276553 19% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 7.30460921844 192% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 24.0651302605 104% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 41.998997996 126% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1742.0 1615.20841683 108% => OK
No of words: 337.0 315.596192385 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16913946588 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28457229495 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81422367448 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 176.041082164 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.617210682493 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 563.4 506.74238477 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.7284617825 49.4020404114 143% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.428571429 106.682146367 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0714285714 20.7667163134 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.14285714286 7.06120827912 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => 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: 0.153110891173 0.244688304435 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0419214344662 0.084324248473 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0464007368187 0.0667982634062 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0889228714737 0.151304729494 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0316353910133 0.056905535591 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 50.2224549098 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.4159519038 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.98 8.58950901804 116% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 78.4519038076 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.