Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some people argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection of wild animals because we humans have no need for them. I completely disagree with this point of view.
In my opinion, it is absurd to argue that wild animals have no place in the 21st century. I do not believe that planet Earth exists only for the benefit of humans, and there is nothing special about this particular century that means that we suddenly have the right to allow or encourage the extinction of any species. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason why we should let animals die out. We do not need to exploit or destroy every last square metre of land in order to feed or accommodate the world’s population. There is plenty of room for us to exist side by side with wild animals, and this should be our aim.
I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. It is usually the protection of natural habitats that ensures the survival of wild animals, and most scientists agree that these habitats are also crucial for human survival. For example, rainforests produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and stabilise the Earth’s climate. If we destroyed these areas, the costs of managing the resulting changes to our planet would far outweigh the costs of conservation. By protecting wild animals and their habitats, we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth.
In conclusion, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist, and I believe that we should do everything we can to protect them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 478, Rule ID: SMALL_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, use 'a few', or use 'some'
Suggestion: a few; some
...ng every year and it still has room for a small number of species in the wild compared to an enor...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 566, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...o an enormous population. Therefore, we should not force wild animals to the edg...
^^
Line 4, column 130, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...nvironment that plays a crucial role in the exist of those species. In addition, protecti...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 353, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...the Earth's climate. If we destroy this areas, it might result in disaster on E...
^^^^
Line 4, column 447, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , …
...ding global warming, green house effects,…. Therefore, the consequence will outwei...
^^
Line 4, column 575, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'contributed'.
Suggestion: contributed
...mals and their natural habitats, we are contribute to a better world with less chance of n...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 43, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
... conclusion, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist. In my opinio...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, if, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 24.0651302605 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 31.0 41.998997996 74% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1398.0 1615.20841683 87% => OK
No of words: 275.0 315.596192385 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08363636364 5.12529762239 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7320055903 2.80592935109 97% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 176.041082164 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.578181818182 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 435.6 506.74238477 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.4792228625 49.4020404114 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.375 106.682146367 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1875 20.7667163134 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.625 7.06120827912 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.01903807615 139% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.231911071416 0.244688304435 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0795102022934 0.084324248473 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0833504085338 0.0667982634062 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154922539156 0.151304729494 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0452434601957 0.056905535591 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.0946893788 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 50.2224549098 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.4159519038 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.58950901804 98% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 78.4519038076 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.