The author in this topic presents an argument about nations passing a law to preserve any remaining wilderness in their natural state. Although I wish to staunchly support this argument, there are always two sides of the coin. Considering the wilderness in any nation, I think every individual would want to preserve the forests or any other natural habitats. We see the environmental activists relentlessly working on saving the environment and also many movements like 'Plant a tree foundation' in many nations. Pre-independent India also was marked by the 'Chipkoo movement' where people formed human circles around trees to prevent them from being uprooted. Environmentalists argue that animals, various flowering plants and other species who find their natural habitat in these wilderness are driven to extinction due to man made habitats in these areas. The daily news reports bears or panthers entering a colony of man made habitats and killing people; a suggestion of humans encroaching their lands.
Speaking of nations around the world that houses millions of people, and specifically over populated countries like India and China to name a few, how could a nation like this provide infrastructure and also preserve the wilderness? The count of the world population is far more than the total animal count or other species. Nonetheless, the source of oxygen, food, textile all depend on the products from the wilderness and the balance of life is maintained by these forests. The question that arises is, how much? Out of the remaining wilderness areas how much should be preserved and how much could be utilized to sustain the world population? As a governance, a law should definitely be passed to preserve the remaining wilderness in order for a 'sustainable development'.
So as we all argue about preserving our conservation forests, we are the same ones who want a plush bungalow, a car, good public transport and niche infrastructure. But as the saying goes 'anything too much is bad', I support the argument that at least what is left should be preserved. As citizens of a nation it would be very easy to blame the governance of how the pre-existing wilderness had been destroyed but we need to keep in mind the budding world population. All this said I strongly believe the nations should pass a law trying to preserve what is left else, the world would be a place of tsunamis, cyclones and earthquakes, a sign from mother nature to leave the wilderness untouched.
- True success can be measured primarily in terms of the goals one sets for oneself.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you ta 50
- Claim: Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today.Reason: The world today is significantly more complex than it was even in the relatively recent past.Write a response in which you discuss the exten 75
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, 52
- It is more harmful to compromise one's own beliefs than to adhere to them.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In d 50
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls around the country."The surface of a section of Route 101, paved just two years ago by Good Intentions Roadways, is now badly cracked 63
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 774, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this wilderness' or 'these wildernesses'?
Suggestion: this wilderness; these wildernesses
...ecies who find their natural habitat in these wilderness are driven to extinction due to man mad...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, nonetheless, so, at least, i think, speaking of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 33.0505617978 76% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 58.6224719101 85% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2072.0 2235.4752809 93% => OK
No of words: 410.0 442.535393258 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.05365853659 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49982852243 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91736681775 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 215.323595506 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.560975609756 0.4932671777 114% => OK
syllable_count: 639.0 704.065955056 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => 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: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.9807440492 60.3974514979 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.882352941 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1176470588 23.4991977007 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.64705882353 5.21951772744 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.97078651685 60% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.201906161744 0.243740707755 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0680237092081 0.0831039109588 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0759458570396 0.0758088955206 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136392711548 0.150359130593 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0231321219567 0.0667264976115 35% => 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: 14.4 14.1392134831 102% => 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: 12.31 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.02 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 100.480337079 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.