Some people think that human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more important than saving land for endangered animals. Do you agree or disagree with this point of view? Why or why not? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer
The use of natural resources for human benefit has been a controversial topic since the industrial revolution. Some people claim that we should give priority to the improvement of mankind. Others believe that the conservation of nature must be our biggest concern. In my opinion, we should recognize the importance of land for endangered animals. I feel these way because of the following reasons.
To begin with, I think nature, specially land and water, belongs to the natives animals within it. Animals, specially endangered species, are an important part of the ecosystem. For example, near my house there was a huge and vivid natural reserve which contained hundreds of native species of animals unique to that region of the world. The ecosystem was in harmony until a big project of building complexes was started, chopping down hundreds of trees. This unbalanced the thin equilibrium there inhabited, causing a huge loss in diversity in fauna and flora. I strongly believe that all this suffering could have been avoided should we have respected the animal's right to land.
Moreover, losing diversity and animals species is a lose for humanity too, in terms of scientific knowledge. Humans are not the only ones inhabiting the planet Earth. As a result, other organisms have as big of an importance as our needs have in terms of how many resources we should allocate for them. Additionally, the scientific community, specially biologists and botanics, have a strong interest in studying other life forms and the relationship between them. Mega-projects, such as farmlands or housing expansion, are directly threatening the study of these species by decreasing population of wild animals and changing a specie's habits. I think the expansion of the human civilization does not justify how this limits out capability to understand Earth's history and life forms.
To conclude, it is my belief that priorizing humans needs over those of animals is not the proper approach to mankind growth. Mainly because doing so violates animal's rights and hurts our own scientific knowledge about other organisms in the planet Earth.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-12-28 | Mina.2020 | 76 | view |
| 2022-12-17 | MotherAstronaut | 70 | view |
| 2022-12-04 | Rapidbirthday21 | 81 | view |
| 2022-12-04 | Rapidbirthday21 | 78 | view |
| 2022-08-31 | cocoza@gmail.com | 87 | view |
- young people enjoy life more than older people do 71
- Some people think that human needs for farmland housing and industry are more important than saving land for endangered animals Do you agree or disagree with this point of view Why or why not Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 78
- People believe in the statement Never never give up do you agree or disagree with this thought 70
- People believe in the statement Never never give up do you agree or disagree with this thought 70
- People believe in the statement Never never give up do you agree or disagree with this thought 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 355, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this way' or 'these ways'?
Suggestion: this way; these ways
... of land for endangered animals. I feel these way because of the following reasons. To...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 51, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...losing diversity and animals species is a lose for humanity too, in terms of scientifi...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, moreover, so, for example, i feel, i think, such as, as a result, in my opinion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 15.1003584229 79% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 9.8082437276 61% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.0286738351 54% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 43.0788530466 67% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 52.1666666667 86% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.0752688172 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1790.0 1977.66487455 91% => OK
No of words: 342.0 407.700716846 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23391812865 4.8611393121 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30037696126 4.48103885553 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81728142993 2.67179642975 105% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 212.727598566 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.576023391813 0.524837075471 110% => OK
syllable_count: 563.4 618.680645161 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.1344086022 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.4754921181 48.9658058833 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.2105263158 100.406767564 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 20.6045352989 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.15789473684 5.45110844103 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 11.8709677419 76% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.210432595327 0.236089414692 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0597189924995 0.076458572812 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0431200901281 0.0737576698707 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121404703012 0.150856017488 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0271931773092 0.0645574589148 42% => 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: 12.2 11.7677419355 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 58.1214874552 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.1575268817 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 10.9000537634 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.19 8.01818996416 115% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 86.8835125448 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.002688172 60% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.0537634409 92% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.247311828 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.