With the increased 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?
In this day and ages, the globally accelerating requirement for energy resources has raised certain questions for locating alternative sources. Whether this exploitation should be expanded to intact places is a disputable issue. My view is that despite its merits, its drawbacks are, by far, more substantial.
Those who are inclined to seeking energy in pristine areas have some reasons to support their viewpoints. Apparently, in light of reaching far away, residents of those places could benefit from electricity grids and cutting-the-edge infrastructure, which usually make their way together with the process of unearthing minerals and fossil fuel for power generation. This means that the local living standards would be undoubtedly improved thanks to the introduction of those newly various facilities. Another fruitful outcome of the exploitation scheme is to meet the heated demand for energy on a global scale, tackling issues encountered by many countries. The potentials of those projects could lessen the transportation cost, for example, as the price of petrol would be kept low, allowing a smooth flow of carrying goods across the world.
Nevertheless, I would claim that its drawbacks could be hardly arguable. Firstly, the expense for discovering an untouched location of alternative energy might be enormous, beyond the state budget, as a result, triggering financial burdens on taxpayers, who are likely to shoulder the deficits. More seriously, this act could pose alarming threats to natural habitats of many endangered species, damaging the biodiversity and sustainability of the Earth. This is because resources are, normally, deposited in the deep layer, thus in order to extract them, factories inadvertently disrupt the wildlife by mining or even bombing. In fact, numerous animal species have been on the edge of extinction since they lost their homes and food sources by virtue of this kind of human activities.
By way of conclusion, it is my belief that concerning those aforementioned reasons, the government should contemplate renewable resources to avoid undesirable drawbacks from searching new oil and gas reverses.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-06-03 | Diem Hang 1612 | 89 | view |
- Scientific research should be carried out and controlled by the governments rather than private companies. Do you agree or disagree? 89
- In modern societies, it is possible for people to go shopping, work andcommunicate via the internet without face-to-face communication. Is it a positive or negative development? 89
- Scientists predict in the near future cars will be driven by computers, not people. Why? Do you think it is a positive or negative development? 11
- Somepeoplethinksecondaryschoolstudentsshouldlearninternationalnewsasoneoftheirsubjects,whileothersbelievethatthisisawasteofvaluabletime.Discussbothviewsandgiveyourownopinion 11
- These days, it seems that an increasing number of people are leaving rural areas to live in thecity.Discuss some of the effects of rural depopulation (migration from the country to the city ) andsuggest some ways on which this trend could be reversed. 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 145, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whether” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...tions for locating alternative sources. Whether this exploitation should be expanded to...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, first, firstly, if, nevertheless, so, thus, for example, in fact, kind of, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 24.0651302605 112% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 41.998997996 112% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1828.0 1615.20841683 113% => OK
No of words: 329.0 315.596192385 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.55623100304 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25891501996 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0715455025 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 176.041082164 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.653495440729 0.561755894193 116% => OK
syllable_count: 556.2 506.74238477 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.175920974 49.4020404114 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.571428571 106.682146367 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 20.7667163134 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06120827912 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => 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: 0.133761393341 0.244688304435 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0381380963338 0.084324248473 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0316770163319 0.0667982634062 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.076819621838 0.151304729494 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0188048338678 0.056905535591 33% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 13.0946893788 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 50.2224549098 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.3001002004 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.26 12.4159519038 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.49 8.58950901804 122% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 78.4519038076 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.