Animals should not be used for the benefit of human beings unless there is evidence that the animals do not suffer in any way. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Currently, there is a lot of controversy about using animals for human needs. Animal rights activists are trying to stop all modern and traditional activities, which involve killing animals or cause their suffering. Traditionalists are trying to convince the community that using living creatures for men's needs is natural and can’t be avoided in everyday life. This essay will explore it in detail.
On one hand, activists, who defend animal rights, are preaching the world not to use animals in any way. First of all, they believe that animals should have exactly same rights as humans do. To explain, people and animals are both living creatures, thus there shouldn't be any difference in treating them. So-called extreme vegans, case in point, are refusing to eat any food of animal origin, even milk or honey. Apart from this, such people view killing animals and keeping them in captivity cause animals suffering to them and is perceived uncivilised as well.
On the other side, traditionalists disagree with the statement that human should stop killing animals or using them to fulfil their needs. As, from the very beginning of human civilisation, there is a tradition and vital need to use animals as a food and their parts in traditional crafts. What’s more, without proteins and vitamins of animal origin, the human body wouldn't receive all nutrients it needs. Moreover, testing some medicals on animals already helped to fight many diseases people suffered from.
To conclude, people have the moral right to use animals to their benefit, to some extent. Animals shouldn’t be led to suffer and die for our fun. Although, using animals for food is natural for humans as predators, but as civilised predators, we should make sure to use only humane ways of killing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 260, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: shouldn't
...s are both living creatures, thus there shouldnt be any difference in treating them. So-...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 367, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...tamins of animal origin, the human body wouldnt receive all nutrients it needs. Moreove...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, moreover, so, thus, well, apart from, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 8.3376753507 48% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1490.0 1615.20841683 92% => OK
No of words: 293.0 315.596192385 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08532423208 5.12529762239 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13729897018 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57963137172 2.80592935109 92% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 176.041082164 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.57337883959 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 469.8 506.74238477 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.7517939338 49.4020404114 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.125 106.682146367 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3125 20.7667163134 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.125 7.06120827912 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.443556171965 0.244688304435 181% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.144423415165 0.084324248473 171% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0579842090428 0.0667982634062 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.27369163902 0.151304729494 181% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0542372924129 0.056905535591 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.0946893788 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 50.2224549098 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.4159519038 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.58950901804 95% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 78.4519038076 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 9.78957915832 72% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.