Organized tour to remote areas and community is increasingly popular. Is it a positive or negative development for the local people and environment?
In recent decades, travelling to rural regions have been organized at an increasing rate, causing some public controversy. Although this may bring several downsides for the locals, the returns are entirely justifiable on environmental grounds.
On the one hand, the increase of remote tourism which has been a contributing factor in the sustainable development of environmental issues should not be underestimated. In fact, there are plenty of negative activities which have dramatically degraded ecosystems and habitats, suggesting an significant causal relationship between negative activities and preserved biodiversity. For example, in order to enormously expand into the highway that is within the nation’s infrastructural investment, most regions may sacrifice trees such as logging forests, which directly correlates with the soil erosion and the intensification of global warming. Secondly, although visitors and government have derived benefits from the tour industrialization, there is growing evidence that environmental issues are being threatened by air and water pollution, especially introducing toxic discharge from tertiary industry and dumping waste from unconscious activities of visitors.
On the other hand, I support the view of those who believe that the advantages of exploring distant areas outweighs the disadvantages. Firstly, residents’ lives are much more convenient thank to reap benefits of these faraway tourism, which means that people can easily achieve a success in doing daily routine. A clear illustration of this is that commuting between their home and workplace relies on the modernised infrastructure and facilities, regarding subways and aircraft. In addition, such citizens are able to become great manpowers whether an entry-level job or a white-collar job because of the need of the improvement of services and logistics belong to travelling. This reduces an enormous amount of the unemployed locals and has resulted in driving the country’s economy.
In conclusion, despite the drawbacks of arriving at unknown destination being produced in unsustainable ways, I believe the benefits overwhelm the disadvantages and that government should heavily invest its resources and finance in the improvement of far-off lands.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-07-29 | ggnsaini08 | 73 | view |
| 2018-07-29 | ggnsaini08 | 67 | view |
| 2018-07-29 | ggnsaini08 | 73 | view |
| 2018-07-29 | ggnsaini08 | 73 | view |
- Organized tour to remote areas and community is increasingly popular Is it a positive or negative development for the local people and environment 86
- In many cities, there is little control on the design and construction of new houses. Some people think that people can choose to build houses in their own styles instead of building them with the same as the old house style in local areas. Do the advanta 61
- Writing IELTS task 2 - "Throw away" Society 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 289, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...ded ecosystems and habitats, suggesting an significant causal relationship between...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1960.0 1615.20841683 121% => OK
No of words: 329.0 315.596192385 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.95744680851 5.12529762239 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25891501996 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.37324400847 2.80592935109 120% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 176.041082164 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.647416413374 0.561755894193 115% => OK
syllable_count: 612.9 506.74238477 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => 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: 27.0 20.2975951904 133% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 63.6729381728 49.4020404114 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 163.333333333 106.682146367 153% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.4166666667 20.7667163134 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.5833333333 7.06120827912 164% => 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 : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.118627367885 0.244688304435 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0366365134361 0.084324248473 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0315906304453 0.0667982634062 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0559602222819 0.151304729494 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0374829644377 0.056905535591 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.4 13.0946893788 156% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 18.69 50.2224549098 37% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.4 11.3001002004 154% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.58 12.4159519038 142% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.12 8.58950901804 129% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 78.4519038076 163% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.1190380762 126% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => 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.