It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South pole. Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages ?
In this day and age, it is claimed that visiting far-flung and isolated natural habitats such as the South Pole has become a lot easier for scientific and tourist attraction purposes. Although there are some potential benefits, I believe that the demerits of this trend overshadow its merits.
Regarding the preservation factors, having human beings involved in these kinds of locations might have some merits to its protection. Since it is much easier for scientists to enter these places, some uninhibited sides of the world might prevail. As a result, this knowledge would contribute significantly to science and broaden the human beings’ horizon. Another factor worth mentioning is that tourists would be offered a golden chance to be exposed to those intriguing experiences while visiting these places. Hence, the government would receive an abundant amount of profit out of it.
On the contrary, it is an indisputable fact that those distanced natural environments possess a diverse range of flora and fauna, not to mention it is also the habitats of thousands of innocent animals. However, if these kinds of areas keep having humans pay a visit to it in the long run, gradually they would become places for exploitation purposes in order to fulfill the human’s greed. Therefore, this would lead to the degradation of the environment as well as the decrease in the number of animals in the near future. Moreover, as ways of coming to these places are not an issue anymore, human beings would make them become tourist attractions, which might be extremely potential in order to gain more profit. Another significant idea is that some proportion of tourists might not appreciate the place and have some unscrupulous actions towards them. As a consequence, their actions might pose a threat towards the unique beauty of these places.
To sum up everything that has been stated so far, having scientist as well as tourists visiting these places seems to have some remarkable benefits to the place, however, this is one of the main factors that need to be thoroughly considered in order to preserve these places.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-03 | kevann | 84 | view |
| 2023-08-30 | Lanlanlanlan | 78 | view |
| 2023-08-30 | Lanlanlanlan | 73 | view |
| 2023-07-17 | zhao_kangg | 89 | view |
| 2022-12-07 | maiduc | 89 | view |
- Some people argue job satisfaction is more important than job security Others believe a permanent job is more important Discuss both these views and give your own opinion 89
- It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments such as the South pole Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages 73
- Some people argue job satisfaction is more important than job security Others believe a permanent job is more important Discuss both these views and give your own opinion 73
- Some people argue job satisfaction is more important than job security Others believe a permanent job is more important Discuss both these views and give your own opinion 89
- It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environment such as the South Pole Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages 56
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 294, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ts of this trend overshadow its merits. Regarding the preservation factors, havi...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, moreover, regarding, so, therefore, well, while, as to, in fact, such as, as a result, as well as, on the contrary, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 24.0651302605 145% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 44.0 41.998997996 105% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1781.0 1615.20841683 110% => OK
No of words: 348.0 315.596192385 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11781609195 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31911543099 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74746757609 2.80592935109 98% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 176.041082164 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.551724137931 0.561755894193 98% => OK
syllable_count: 558.0 506.74238477 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.10420841683 285% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.2646693789 49.4020404114 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.214285714 106.682146367 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8571428571 20.7667163134 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.1428571429 7.06120827912 158% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
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: 0.125015612446 0.244688304435 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0472724723505 0.084324248473 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.053877287871 0.0667982634062 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0951578247496 0.151304729494 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.059374790298 0.056905535591 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 50.2224549098 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.4159519038 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 78.4519038076 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => 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.