+0

Could you help me check it, please? Here is my essay. Thank you so much.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environment, such as the South Pole. Do you agree or disagree with this development?

In recent decades, there has been a growing trend towards visiting remote natural environment for several purposes. Maybe this trend is taken into consideration by some environmental activists, scientists and holidaymakers should be encouraged to study and explore there.

It gives scientists in different branches countless opportunities travelling to some places, such as the South Pole, to acknowledge and protect it. This benefits not only who do research themselves but the whole society as there will be some solutions for problems such as global warming or ozone depletion. Second, most scientists visit remote natural areas in effort to learn and pave the ways to protect those from human activities. If there are no databases or statistics collected and showed in publish, even innocent people can damage severely the areas.

There are a myriad of advantages for travelers visiting isolated natural areas. One of those benefits is that it gives them available access to a new world and helps them broaden their knowledge. Instead of relying heavily on the internet to seek images in terms of South Pole , there is always room for tourists to take a vacation there. They can be able to enjoy the breathtaking views and develop higher appreciate for nature. That way, some of them are likely to choose to become an environment advocates or even an activist, which helps raise the public awareness on the issue.

In conclusion, traveling to remote natural areas offers a number of benefits to students, professors, volunteers and the whole world. If humans do not disrupt the original state of nature, they should be welcomed.

+0
DuyenleIt is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as Antarctica. the South Pole. Do you agree or disagree with this development?

The topic is problematic.

The South Pole is not an environment.

Please use IELTS topics only from reputable sources.

+0

In recent decades, there has been a growing trend of towards visiting remote natural environments for scientific research and ecotourism. several purposes. Maybe this trend is taken into consideration by some environmental activists, scientists and holidaymakers (wrong word) should be encouraged to study and explore there.(Your sentence is not grammatical. The verb "should be" does not have a grammatical subject.

You did not answer the essay prompt: Do you agree or disagree with this development?

To get a high score, you have to answer this question in a thesis statement.

Here are some examples of thesis statements which answer the question. The body paragraphs give points to support the statement.

1. I completely agree with this trend and would love to visit such places myself.

2. I somewhat agree because it is important for professional scientists to investigate the earth - its geology, weather, and changing climate. However, is should not be a destination for casual tourists.

3. I completely disagree because these places are fragile ecosystems and human traffic there is destructive. )


It (What? There is no referent for "it") gives scientists in different branches countless opportunities travelling to some places, such as Antarctica the South Pole, to acknowledge (not a good word choice.) and protect it. This benefits not only who do research themselves but the whole society as there will be some solutions for problems (Please explain how the South Pole is a solution for global warming.) such as global warming or ozone depletion. Second, most scientists visit remote natural areas in effort to learn and pave the ways to protect those them from human activities. (What human activities do you mean? To get a good mark, you need to develop your topic more.) If there are no databases or statistics collected and showed in publish, (wrong expression) even innocent people can severely damage severely the areas. (I do not understand how innocent people can damage the south pole.)

There are a myriad (wrong word) of advantages for travelers visiting isolated natural areas. One of those benefits is that it gives them available access to a new world and helps them broaden their knowledge. Instead of relying heavily on the internet to seek images in terms of South Pole , there is always room for tourists to take a vacation there. (That is not true.) They can be able to enjoy the breathtaking views and develop higher appreciate for nature. (Well, if you like snow and ice and wind. There is nothing else. ) That way, some of them are likely to choose to become an environment advocates or even an activist, which helps raise the public awareness on the issue.

In conclusion, traveling to remote natural areas offers a number of benefits to students, professors, volunteers and the whole world. If humans the visitors do not disrupt the original state of nature, they should be welcomed.


Here is a photo taken over Antarctica. The "south pole" is a point on the earth's surface - where the earth's axes (rotational and magnetic) are located.

There is one sunrise per year and one sunset per year. It is completely dark for 6 months of the year. No plants grow there and no animals live there. The weather is extremely harsh - any exposed skin will be frozen after only a minute.

There is a scientific research station, but access is strictly controlled.

Danny Hampton, National Science Foundation.