In the future, it seems more difficult to live on the earth. some people think more money should be spent on researching other planets to live such as Mars. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There is an opinion that more resources should be allocated on habitable planets research as live on earth is proving more and more challenging. I would argue that although such a proposal maybe justifiable due to the lack of resources and climatic crisis on Earth it would prove too risky and costly to be carried out.
Granted, it can be totally understandable why proponents of this scheme approve of raising funds for interplanetary research. This is because overpopulation is currently putting a huge pressure on our ecosystem, specifically through natural resources depletion and environmental contamination. These factors could contribute to climate change and global warming, causing hostile weather conditions such as flooding erosion why fire to happen more frequently, which can do a great damage to people's lives quality, especially that of those live in underprivileged countries. Therefore, funding research on searching for other planets for human race to migrate to and reside in seems immensely promising. If the new land is suitable for harboring and protecting life, the life of humans might be easier as the weather there could be more stable than Earth’s, helping people to settle and more live contently.
However, this line of reasoning is not sound because it fails to factoring the cost and risks of interplanetary travelling. It requires a collosal amount of money, up to billions of dollars, just to launch a one-man shuttle into space. The cost of transporting hundreds of people would definitely be an unimaginable, let alone the entire humans’ population. Furthermore, the new planet might have potential threats from its atmosphere, gravity, environment or surface, so no matter how much research we conduct, there will surely be some unknown dangers. Thus instead, it would be a more viable approach to direct money into environmental protection projects, since these are more practical, and could yield more tangible results.
In conclusion, albeit being seemingly advantageous, new planets research is not entirely worth spending budget on because of its cost and risks involved, and money can be better poured in other ecological preservation schemes.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 241, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'resources'' or 'resource's'?
Suggestion: resources'; resource's
...ecosystem, specifically through natural resources depletion and environmental contaminati...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 472, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'great damage'.
Suggestion: great damage
...to happen more frequently, which can do a great damage to peoples lives quality, especially th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 556, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...re will surely be some unknown dangers. Thus instead, it would be a more viable appr...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, may, so, therefore, thus, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 7.85571142285 178% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1856.0 1615.20841683 115% => OK
No of words: 342.0 315.596192385 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.4269005848 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30037696126 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06361314829 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 176.041082164 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.625730994152 0.561755894193 111% => OK
syllable_count: 579.6 506.74238477 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => 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: 26.0 20.2975951904 128% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 47.2479297314 49.4020404114 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.769230769 106.682146367 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.3076923077 20.7667163134 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.07692307692 7.06120827912 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.331568830918 0.244688304435 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106939533435 0.084324248473 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0948756227967 0.0667982634062 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.19755421772 0.151304729494 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.05098542117 0.056905535591 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 13.0946893788 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 50.2224549098 73% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.51 12.4159519038 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.05 8.58950901804 117% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 78.4519038076 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.1190380762 123% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => 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.