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?
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%">With the contribution of technological advances, remotely located
areas appear to be potential destinations, such as the South Pole, of tourists
and scientists. Comparing to a long list of wilderness expedition’s obvious
benefits, I firmly believe that the lurking detriments of this trend are far
more severe.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%">Travelling to untouched regions does harms to the ecosystem. Large-scale
exploitation for food, drinks and accommodation of visitors can destroy the
ecological balance in the once inaccessible lands. Moreover, it is unlikely
that invaders take back their waste after discovering those places. This in
turn leads to habitat devastation and substantial loss of biodiversity.
Furthermore, scientific studying requires meticulous investigations in to native
creatures and their habitats, for example, drilling through hundreds of metres
thick icecap in the Pole. Hence, those fragile environments are on the verge of
destruction.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%">Man is negatively affected by the so-called adventure journeys
rather than benefits from them. Holiday-makers as well as researchers might have
to encounter hazardous accidents and various injuries, which can cause life-long
traumas. Those voyages are also extremely expensive, due to vigorous training
for travellers and technological equipments required before the departure.
Regarding native residents in those pristine lands, they may be forced to
change their traditional customs in order to adapt to outsiders’ lifestyle. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%">In conclusion, wilderness travelling exerts more negative
impacts than the positive ones, which needs intricate studying and
consideration. With a view to reinforcing this trend, pragmatic and longterm
approaches must be adopted to decrease its demerits on human being and the
environment alike.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-08-30 | Saeedeamani | 78 | view |
| 2019-08-30 | Saeedeamani | 56 | view |
| 2019-03-24 | mayankmm | 89 | view |
| 2019-02-12 | dqhungdl | 67 | view |
| 2019-02-12 | dqhungdl | 67 | view |
- 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? 89
- 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? 11
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, hence, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, well, for example, in conclusion, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 41.998997996 90% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2131.0 1615.20841683 132% => OK
No of words: 267.0 315.596192385 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 7.98127340824 5.12529762239 156% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04229324003 4.20363070211 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 8.32927814475 2.80592935109 297% => Word_Length_SD is high.
Unique words: 188.0 176.041082164 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.704119850187 0.561755894193 125% => OK
syllable_count: 577.8 506.74238477 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.2 1.60771543086 137% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 85.718005045 49.4020404114 174% => OK
Chars per sentence: 177.583333333 106.682146367 166% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.25 20.7667163134 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.83333333333 7.06120827912 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 30.0 4.38176352705 685% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.67935871743 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => 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: 0.0642337977218 0.244688304435 26% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0299753675004 0.084324248473 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0281152379278 0.0667982634062 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.022083181389 0.151304729494 15% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0396784801818 0.056905535591 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 27.3 13.0946893788 208% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -1.62 50.2224549098 -3% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 19.0 11.3001002004 168% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 29.3 12.4159519038 236% => Coleman_liau_index is high.
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.53 8.58950901804 134% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 78.4519038076 147% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum five paragraphs wanted.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 11.2359550562 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.