It is possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as South Pole, do you think the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantage?
As remote natural places are expected to abound in variety of beautiful natural landscapes and resources, there is an upward tendency that both scientists and tourists become interested in going into such sites. At some level, I still believe in this development to do more good than harm.
First, natural resources are important for sustaining life and providing many everyday conveniences. Any kind of resources, from oil to copper, are getting scarcer in recent decades as the rapidly developing economies require more. Hence, scientists started getting more commitment on alternative energy sources from distant regions where are rich in all sorts of mineral resources. For instance, South Pole is known as the container of huge coal and gas reserve. As a result, local resources can be exploited to cater for the use for all human beings and solve some extreme resources urgency in the globe.
Furthermore, many remote places’ economies are highly reliant on the travel and tourism industry. Tourists traveling around these places may increase tourism and travel industry development, and also add jobs and contribute to an area’s economy. Additionally, “culture” is one of the chief consumables of tourism, and experiencing unusual cultures can be educational for the visitor and highly profitable for the community.
However, it should be noticed that the more people get into the distant unspoiled places, the more problems may be caused. For example, local ecosystems and environments can be affected by over exploited and land-based resort activities. With the travel decreasing due to fluctuations in the global economy, fewer people spend money on travel, leading to local recession in the places rely on tourism. Moreover, each area tries to maintain its own distinct history and culture. When these cultures come into contact with the strong forces of globalization, maintaining traditional local culture often becomes quite difficult.
To conclude, I approve of that scientists and tourists visiting remote natural areas can help tap potential natural resources and ensure more people have the chances to appreciate the beautiful scenes, only if they could travel responsibly and conserve the environment and improve the well-being of local people.
- Some people think that it is more important to plant more trees in open area which in towns and cities than build more housing. To what extend do agree or disagree? 90
- The table describes the changes of people who went for international travel in 1990 1995 2000 and 2005 68
- Many museums and historical sites are mainly visited by tourists, not local people. Why? What can be done to attract local people? 60
- Some students take one year off between finishing school and going to university, in order to travel or to work. Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? 80
- With major cities continue growing are there any problems to young people How to solve these problems 40
from distant regions where are rich in all sorts of mineral resources
from distant regions where they are rich in all sorts of mineral resources
and solve some extreme resources urgency in the globe.
and solve some extreme resources urgent in the globe.
and solve some extreme resources which are urgent in the globe.
the distant unspoiled places, ............. beautiful natural landscapes
Description: don't use adj. + adj. + noun. You got bad credit by this style of writing. You may use adv. + adj. + noun. or one adj. + noun.
leading to local recession in the places rely on tourism.
leading to recessions in the places where they rely on tourism.
leading to recessions in the places which rely on tourism.
leading to recessions in the places relying on tourism.
Sentence: To conclude, I approve of that scientists and tourists visiting
Description: The token of is not usually followed by a conjunction, subordinating
Suggestion: Refer to of and that
flaws:
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
Till now, we only can find out that grammar is your problem. Is this the reason to prevent you getting higher marks?
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 6.5 out of 9
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 351 350
No. of Characters: 1869 1500
No. of Different Words: 208 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.328 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.325 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.717 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 155 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.938 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.8 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.304 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.563 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.038 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5