Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their national state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.
Environmental protection has always been a hot issue for most of the countries, and it also attracts enormous attentions from the public. Given that moral disciplines are sometimes not effective enough, some people argue that laws should be passed to protect any remaining wilderness areas even if they can be exploited for economic benefits. While I agree that laws are needed to protect these areas, I mostly object to this statement because it is so blind and absolute that it ignores the consequences it may bring.
First, it just wastes time and resources to specialy legislate for some remote and bleak wilderness areas where nobody even wants to explores. For instance, no one would like to exploit some deserts in China: these places not only difficult to get in and dangerous, but also lack resources. If we enact a law for it, it will not contribute anything but undermines the authority of the legislature, and the money and time could be more useful on other places.
Besides, it will conflict with the local people who depends on the primitive areas all the time. It is a particularly salient example that the primitive tribes in the Amazon Rain Forest which lives there for hundreds of years have been a part of this system. First, will it be fair enogh that people live outside the forest legislate for the natives who have been there from generation to generation. And they will try their best to fight with the law-executors because this is their only motherland and may be slaughtered because what they only have are primitive weapons. What is worse, it will cause humanitarian crisis since they just live there and do no harm to the forest. Even in some rural areas in China where there are some laws protecting some kind of animal or plant, people will break the laws to steal and hunt them because of poverty and bad supervision. Instead, we can build some of these palces as tourist attractions so that local people will not destroy but protect them because the natives make more money whereby these palces. These examples also show that it is unrealistic ridiculous to fully execute as the statement claims.
Furthmore, precious chance of developemnt will be missed if we do not exploit these areas properly. For example, there is a huge amount of natural resources in the wild like grass, woods, and etc. which will be wasted even if we do not make use of them. Indeed, resources like these can generate by themselves with energy originally coming from the Sun and wilderness areas can be well preserved as long as we human manage these palces under the scientific guidance. And the money we gain from the natural resources can also be used to developed technology which, in turn, can improve the environment. Recently, Chinese scientists have claimed that they have succeeded in developing the technology changing the desert into the grass land.
From all discussed above, while I agree laws are needed to protect the wild, I generally disagree this statement as result of its consequences mentioned above. Alternative suggestion are too complex to talk about in this writing though I have mentioned some in this writing.
- People's behavior is largely determined by forces not of their own making. 66
- In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being influenced by past achievement within that field. 79
- Formal education tends to restrain our minds and spirits rather than set them free. 83
- Universities should require every student take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study. 66
- Governments shuold offer a free university education to any students who have been admitted to a university but who cannot offer the tuition 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 134, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'explore'.
Suggestion: explore
...erness areas where nobody even wants to explores. For instance, no one would like to exp...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 552, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...slaughtered because what they only have are primitive weapons. What is worse, it wi...
^^^
Line 13, column 189, Rule ID: AND_ETC[1]
Message: Use simply 'etc.'.
Suggestion: etc.
...esources in the wild like grass, woods, and etc. which will be wasted even if we do not ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, if, may, so, well, while, as to, for example, for instance, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 58.0 33.0505617978 175% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 57.0 58.6224719101 97% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2631.0 2235.4752809 118% => OK
No of words: 536.0 442.535393258 121% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90858208955 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81161862636 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56521573815 2.79657885939 92% => OK
Unique words: 265.0 215.323595506 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494402985075 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 846.9 704.065955056 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 0.0 4.99550561798 0% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.8192729248 60.3974514979 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.590909091 118.986275619 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3636363636 23.4991977007 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.27272727273 5.21951772744 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.254344906291 0.243740707755 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0720351016773 0.0831039109588 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0705840530561 0.0758088955206 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142592217384 0.150359130593 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0747995334701 0.0667264976115 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.1639044944 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 100.480337079 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.