Agree or Disagree? It is more important to use land for human needs such as farming, housing, and industry than to save it for endangered animals.
We have been immersed in a controversial issue in land reclamation and protection, which might render a response to the pressure from the growth of population. However, if the habitats of endangered animals are invaded constantly, an ecological balance tends to be severely disrupted. I believe only through setting aside land for endangered animals can such a dilemma be solved.
Admittedly, if there is insufficient supply of farming field, the crop output might suffer from a considerable reduction. With respect to humanitarian, nobody wishes to witness the rootless existence of those who are lack of housing space. A statistical survey conducted by the U.N. suggests that the global population would exceed ten billion in 2050, which is a warning to us that fields for farming, housing, and industry will be intensively developed. Meanwhile, whether governments of developed countries in Europe or developing countries in Africa, they both face a survival crisis. Nevertheless, from the perspective of ecological balance, the government should enact a plan of land reclamation to maintain all habitats of endangered animals.
First, the biodiversity of the planet is getting unbalance due to the extinction of animals. Such a problem has intensified over recent decades with unprecedented urbanization, which is increasingly critical in developing countries because of the soaring up of economic progress. To illustrate, endangered species like jaguars and polar bears are disappearing at an alarming rate resulting from an excessive exploration. On the other hand, offshore overfishing along the Pacific and Atlantic coast can affect marine ecosystem globally. It is crucial that the Earth should embrace substantial numbers of various species, which is a prerequisite to maintain a well-balanced ecosystem of Mother Nature. Therefore, humans should be on a mission of saving habitats for animals, which can be equal to saving human lives.
Moreover, the reservation of animals’ habitats can ensure further development of human society. Scientists often draw inspiration from thoroughly studying animals in their natural habitats, which can offer necessities to satisfy the most fundamental demand of human survival. For example, spiders living in the Amazon rainforest can spin webs which can be utilized as materials to manufacture strong fibers. Also, snakes inhabiting in Sichuan Province can secrete venoms to help pharmacy industry develop derivatives. If these animals were extinct, humans would be unable to enjoy advantages from nature, which can prove that countless animals benefit humans both commercially and medically. Thus, setting aside fields for endangered animals, scientists can keep them alive and study how to take advantage of the natural.
In summary, the harmony between humans and nature is indispensable, which can benefit mankind in a sustainable way. Hence excessive exploitation ought to be prohibited strictly and endangered animals should be protected cautiously.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 210, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
...witness the rootless existence of those who are lack of housing space. A statistical su...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 95, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a sustainable way" with adverb for "sustainable"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...ndispensable, which can benefit mankind in a sustainable way. Hence excessive exploitation ought to...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 118, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
... benefit mankind in a sustainable way. Hence excessive exploitation ought to be proh...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, so, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, in summary, with respect to, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 15.1003584229 139% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 9.8082437276 214% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 13.8261648746 65% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.0286738351 127% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 43.0788530466 30% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 52.1666666667 125% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 8.0752688172 223% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2571.0 1977.66487455 130% => OK
No of words: 451.0 407.700716846 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.70066518847 4.8611393121 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60833598836 4.48103885553 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11960233397 2.67179642975 117% => OK
Unique words: 272.0 212.727598566 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60310421286 0.524837075471 115% => OK
syllable_count: 818.1 618.680645161 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.51630824373 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 7.0 3.08781362007 227% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.6003584229 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.7658010398 48.9658058833 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.863636364 100.406767564 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5 20.6045352989 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.81818181818 5.45110844103 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 11.8709677419 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.183705562263 0.236089414692 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0526450971379 0.076458572812 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0577988640051 0.0737576698707 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103401723971 0.150856017488 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.03008583978 0.0645574589148 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 11.7677419355 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.26 58.1214874552 59% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.5 10.1575268817 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.78 10.9000537634 145% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.55 8.01818996416 132% => OK
difficult_words: 169.0 86.8835125448 195% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.002688172 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.