Organized tours to remote places and communities are increasingly popular.
Is it a positive or negative development for the local people and environment?
It is true that the prevalence of tourism in remote areas has been expanded over that past few years. While I accept that it may exert detrimental impacts, I believe that this trend also bring about several advantages.
On the one hand, there are two major minuses when tourists wander off the beaten tracks. Regarding to local people, cultural clashes, happening when visitors lack respects for tradition and regulations, stand out as the most discernible inconvenience. Indeed, if foreigners behave inappropriately and violate destinations’ codes of conduct, this will not only deprive domestic residents of social orders and tranquility, but also cause a loss of moral and religious values. Regarding to the environment, such types of travel as ecotourism or wildlife safaris make attraction thronged with tourists, and this is believed to create an excessive pressure on limited resources and infrastructures. Consequently, scenery depletion and ecological crisis are predicted to occupy remote areas due to mass tourism.
On the other hand, travel to isolated regions is also recognized to be advantageous because of several benefits. Firstly, the more visitors experience local natural and cultural heritage, the more likely their images and identity of locals are to go viral. Therefore, this may help citizens raise public awareness of their importance, as well as stimulate interests and involvement in conservation, which has puzzled authorities for years. Secondly, another gain stems from economic values. In particular, in order to keep pace with travelers’ demand and receive a massive influx of money, local service sector is thought to need a huge number of labors. Not only does this create jobs but also help residents improve employment and earning prospects thanks to tourism-related professional training.
In brief, it seems to me that traveling to remote areas has a double-edged impact on both residents and the society.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-25 | phuong cao | 11 | view |
- The graph below shows different sources of air pollutants in the UK from 1990 to 2005. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 89
- The world natural resources are consumed at an ever-increased rate.What are the causes of this situation? What are the solutions? 67
- The diagram illustrates the process that is used to manufacture bricks for the building industry Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 87
- The following bar chart shows the different modes of transport used to travel to and from work in one European city in 1960 1980 and 2000 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 95
- The chart below shows the percentage of population in three different age group in Japan.Summarize the information by selecting and reviewing the main features, and make comparison where relevant. 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 806, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... tourism-related professional training. In brief, it seems to me that traveling ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, firstly, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, while, in brief, in particular, as well as, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1672.0 1615.20841683 104% => OK
No of words: 301.0 315.596192385 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.55481727575 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12379290933 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 176.041082164 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.661129568106 0.561755894193 118% => OK
syllable_count: 529.2 506.74238477 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.6305938383 49.4020404114 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.428571429 106.682146367 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.3571428571 7.06120827912 175% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0720217615932 0.244688304435 29% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0227882888467 0.084324248473 27% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0248152984919 0.0667982634062 37% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0420177799075 0.151304729494 28% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00967013824654 0.056905535591 17% => 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: 15.5 13.0946893788 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 50.2224549098 66% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.91 12.4159519038 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.34 8.58950901804 120% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 78.4519038076 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 11.2359550562 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.