Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Modern agriculture does damage the environment but providing food for the growing population around the world is more important than protecting the environment
The priority for a better living has become the topic of great controversy in recent years. There is a considerable body of opinion that modern agriculture does damage the environment, but providing food for the growing population around the world is more important than protecting the environment. This paper will elucidate the reasons why I am against this opinion.
On one hand, eco-efficiency and agricultural development are what I consider crucial factors. It is noteworthy that protecting the environment is synonymous with eco-friendly activity such as advocating for clean alternatives to fossil fuels, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and appropriately designed hydroelectric and biomass energy projects. Thanks to this, people are likely to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and short-lived pollutants such as black carbon, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, and tropospheric ozone. Accordingly, they are capable of stopping the irreversible consequence of global warming, rising sea levels, food security, and public health. With this in mind, they stand a golden chance to prevent millions of premature deaths annually and improve food security by avoiding tens of millions of annual staple crop losses. Eventually, this probably gives rise to eco-efficiency. More notably, while people are prioritized for protecting the environment, managing resources sustainably is inevitable. In the event of this, there is a likelihood for them to reduce the negative environmental impacts of agriculture production, which can damage the natural assets. On the ground of that, it is also conceivable to ensure the long-term viability of farm businesses. During this process, strengthening agricultural innovation systems and facilitate the adoption of more innovative practices at the farm and agri-food firm-level seems to be on the cards. Under those circumstances, it makes it feasible for them to develop agricultural fields. Given these points, prioritize for protecting the environment is greatly contributes to eco-efficiency and agricultural development.
On the other hand, some people might express a different view that protecting the environment needn't be of paramount importance at the moment because it won't diminish the number of famines- one of the most serious problems in the world nowadays. As a consequence, it creates a huge burden on the world population. Although that might be true, it is just applicable to a minority. People have already well thought about the plan. Incidentally, there is the apparent purposefulness of their method. Therefore, it is unlikely that prioritize environmental protection needn't be of paramount importance at the moment. Another point often overlooked is even if famine does exist, it should be considered as the chance for people to understand these serious problems and actively practice frugality in the expenditure of water or electricity. By the same token, they have an incentive to reduce the negative environmental impacts of agricultural production, which can damage the natural assets. They are given the opportunity to ensure the long-term viability of farm business, which creates a significant impact on the current state of agricultural affairs. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, they have a propensity to strengthen agricultural innovation systems and facilitate the adoption of more innovative practices at the farm and agri-food firm levels. Thus, indeed, empowers them to solve the problems of famines increasing and environmental contamination simultaneously. By and large, people should put off the idea that giving a priority to protecting the environment over providing food for the growing population around the world precludes the world from maintaining the country's population.
In summary, eco-efficiency and agricultural development are the convincing reasons for my disapproval. I hope that people take this writing into great consideration to gather diverse perspectives on the issue regarding the priority for better living.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Although science and technology will continue to improve the most significant improvements in the quality of people s lives have already taken place 73
- It is often not a good thing for people to move to a new town or a new country because of the loss of old social connection 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement The ability to maintain a small number of friends for a long time is more important to happiness than the ability to make new friends easily 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement People who cannot accept the criticism from others will not be successful at working in a group 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Modern agriculture does damage the environment but providing food for the growing population around the world is more important than protecting the environment 71
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 95, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: needn't
...nt view that protecting the environment neednt be of paramount importance at the momen...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 564, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: needn't
...hat prioritize environmental protection neednt be of paramount importance at the momen...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, if, incidentally, look, regarding, so, then, therefore, thus, well, while, in summary, such as, by and large, by the same token, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 15.1003584229 152% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 9.8082437276 71% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 13.8261648746 130% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.0286738351 100% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 43.0788530466 95% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 52.1666666667 148% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 8.0752688172 334% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3404.0 1977.66487455 172% => OK
No of words: 598.0 407.700716846 147% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.69230769231 4.8611393121 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94510247834 4.48103885553 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.34114716722 2.67179642975 125% => OK
Unique words: 307.0 212.727598566 144% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.513377926421 0.524837075471 98% => OK
syllable_count: 1091.7 618.680645161 176% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.51630824373 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 9.59856630824 156% => OK
Article: 1.0 3.08781362007 32% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 11.0 4.94265232975 223% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.6003584229 141% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.2878583857 48.9658058833 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.379310345 100.406767564 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6206896552 20.6045352989 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.86206896552 5.45110844103 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 20.0 11.8709677419 168% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.288885016619 0.236089414692 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0667207748499 0.076458572812 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.094327311045 0.0737576698707 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.182864622436 0.150856017488 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0859285478109 0.0645574589148 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 11.7677419355 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.26 58.1214874552 59% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.5 10.1575268817 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.72 10.9000537634 144% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.2 8.01818996416 115% => OK
difficult_words: 173.0 86.8835125448 199% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.002688172 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.247311828 156% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 Out of 30
---------------------
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.