Both scientist and tourist can visit remote natural environments such as the South Pole. Do the advantages outweigh disadvantages?
In the boom of the tourism industry, tourists flew all around the world to chase spectacular natural sights. Many once-inaccessible areas have become the most appealing places. While scientists' visits are out of public interest and should be permitted, the visits of tourists need to be limited in case of irreversible damage to the environment.
Scientists should be granted the privilege to visit remote natural environments. In the South Pole, for example, dozens of countries have sent scientists here to build research stations because the glacier contains information about millions of years of human history. Given that those scientists have to obey particular rules and use specialized equipment to minimize the impact of their activities on the environment, they would not cause too much damage to the ecosystem.
However, the vast amount of tourists would pose pressure on the environment. In 2018, more than 50,000 people have swarmed to the South Pole. Unlike disciplined scientists, their activities are hard to control. They left plastic bags and tin cans on the ice sheet, trespassed into penguins' living area, and approached them to take photos, which terrified the penguins. Besides, the effect on temperature accelerated the melting of the ice sheet, which impaired the living space of the inhabitants.
Some might argue that watching the breathtaking view of the South Pole could be a fantastic experience. People should not be deprived of the chance. But if we let it happen, years later, there would be nothing to see.
In conclusion, for the best of the natural environment, scientists could be allowed to go under the constraints of specific rules, but tourists' visits should be forbidden.
- students today are under more pressure and are pushed to work hard from a young age Is this a positive or negative development? 89
- Teachers have more influence on their intellectual development and social development than parents. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 78
- Today, more and more people choose to live by themselves. What are the causes of this? Is this a positive or negative development? 78
- It is argued that we are living in a throw-way society: people throw away what they use in daily life, instead of recycling or reusing them. Why has this happened and how to address this issue? 73
- Nowadays a large amount of advertising aiming at children should be banned because of its negative effects. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 89
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, however, if, so, while, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 24.0651302605 42% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1460.0 1615.20841683 90% => OK
No of words: 273.0 315.596192385 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34798534799 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91298394306 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 176.041082164 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.600732600733 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 434.7 506.74238477 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.5970574463 49.4020404114 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.3333333333 106.682146367 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2 20.7667163134 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.26666666667 7.06120827912 60% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.198943719287 0.244688304435 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0612083875529 0.084324248473 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.060496877961 0.0667982634062 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107915016442 0.151304729494 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.041344975263 0.056905535591 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.0946893788 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 50.2224549098 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.4159519038 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.33 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 78.4519038076 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.