When it comes to saving endangered species, people in general believe that we should save all of the endangered species, or our future generation will not have the chance to see those animals or plants. Our offspring could only know current endangered, but extinct in their time, from our descriptions, or any knowledge documented in books or the Internet. However, the resources are not sufficient to save all endangered species. That is, humans play as God to decide which species could live, and which do not have the right to survive. This is somehow improper but we may not have enough resources.
To begin with, consider that if the resources are abundant for protecting all endangered species, the natural selection will be impeded by human intervention. We, humans, could become who we are right now, is due to natural selection. Therefore, if we intervene with the natural selection, the consequence is too catastrophic to imagine. Consider, for instance, we protect a particular insect that is under threat of extinction, but post serious harms to the crops of our agriculture. Should we protect that particular insects? Imagine if we make efforts to protect them, our agriculture production will severely be hampered by our protection. Nevertheless, if we choose profits of agriculture over the conservation of the insect, our future generation will not have the opportunity to witness that beautiful but extinct insect. Therefore, there are more aspects to evaluate than merely protect or not.
On the contrary, if we only protect those species that are endangered due to human activities, it may be plausible. To illustrate, there is an appropriate example that is very persuasive. The polar bear population is serious threatened by the global warming, which is mainly caused by the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the emission of factories or transportation. The public can save them by reducing the emission of carbon dioxide, such as taking public transportation rather than driving individual cars, or developing innocuous or less harmful substances that could be used for production in factories. Through these attempts to protect endangered species, it is possible that the decline of polar bear population could be checked.
In conclusion, all the analysis points to a plausible perspective that we, humans should make extra endeavors to save endangered species that are under extinction due to human activities.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 91, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
... in general believe that we should save all of the endangered species, or our future gener...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, therefore, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, in general, such as, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 58.6224719101 78% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2063.0 2235.4752809 92% => OK
No of words: 390.0 442.535393258 88% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28974358974 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44391917772 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99728235443 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 215.323595506 93% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515384615385 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 654.3 704.065955056 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.740449438202 135% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.4741164488 60.3974514979 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.578947368 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5263157895 23.4991977007 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.42105263158 5.21951772744 142% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.232376927563 0.243740707755 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0722160737549 0.0831039109588 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101892665129 0.0758088955206 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.187628487168 0.150359130593 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.114147096661 0.0667264976115 171% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.8420337079 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 Out of 6
---------------------
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.