To some extent, I agree with the author's opinion that human should take responsibilities to save endangered species if the potential extinction is caused by human activities. However, the author extends the opinion to an extreme which leaves no room for human to save endangered species occasioned by other factors. On balance, my points of view and deep analysis are as follows.
Indeed, each individual should take actions to compensate for their own faults such as destroying the habitats of animals, and human should act as a whole to save endangered species in an efficient and effective way. For example, the forestation will be conducive to rehabilitate the destroyed habitats, which cannot be implemented smoothly and successfully without the participation and determination of human beings.
However, there is an obvious difficulty to distinguish whether the endangered status of species is caused by human activities. As we all know, the world is a wide range connected network, making it impossible that a sole factor is decisive enough to make an event occur. For example, we cannot conclude that the potential extinction of pandas is result from human activities only such as the deforestation caused by industrialization, since the limited ability for reproduction is the inherent reason, which comprises the basis and initial foundation for the potential extinction risk.
It seems that human should make indiscriminate efforts to save endangered species despite the underlying mechanisms. If we just let the extinction process proceeds naturally and do not choose to take active actions to intervene, the ecological diversity will be diminished, and our own living will be intimidated one day. The point is taking the responsibilities and actions to save species rather than to hesitate to distinguish the ultimate causes for the potential extinction, which may be an excuse as the human activities has been ubiquitous with the increase of the number of population and the spread of human activities.
In conclusion, society should make efforts to save endangered species even the risky status is not occasioned by human activities due to the significance for the inherent responsibilities within human beings and maintaining ecological diversity.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 34, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
To some extent, I agree with the authors opinion that human should take responsi...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, may, so, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 33.0505617978 39% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 58.6224719101 68% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1924.0 2235.4752809 86% => OK
No of words: 352.0 442.535393258 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.46590909091 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33147354134 4.55969084622 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20234853772 2.79657885939 115% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 215.323595506 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.505681818182 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 619.2 704.065955056 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 20.2370786517 59% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 29.0 23.0359550562 126% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 72.704118789 60.3974514979 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 160.333333333 118.986275619 135% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.3333333333 23.4991977007 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.75 5.21951772744 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.376038636556 0.243740707755 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.151273105877 0.0831039109588 182% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0873672897396 0.0758088955206 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.232570296732 0.150359130593 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.041385797676 0.0667264976115 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.0 14.1392134831 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 25.12 48.8420337079 51% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.0 12.1743820225 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.04 12.1639044944 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 100.480337079 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.2143820225 121% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.