Both governments and individuals are spending vast amounts of money protecting animals and their habitats. This money could be better spent dealing with fundamental issues in society such as poverty and healthcare. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There is a statement that a huge sum of money has been spent on tackling the environment, especially flora and fauna conservation by both states and people. However, it is argued that this massive expenditure would be superior if being paid for human capital importance such as poverty and healthcare. I strongly contend with this element owing to certain rationales.
On the one hand, the living standard of humans could be equally essential to social evolution. In numerous underprivileged nations, the local citizen might live below the poverty lines. As a matter of fact, they could not afford the basic needs and suffer from annual starvation without any subsidy or other fiscal support. Thereby, a majority of people have been severely affected health conditions. Personally, I think that those aspects are the main reasons for their unwilling spending. Therefore, this field should be given equally paramount considerations.
On the other hand, natural factors, inclusive of wild animals and habitats, are considered as fundamental keys. First and foremost, it is usually the protection of those natural features that fortify human survival. For instance, the extinction of solely herbivorous prey could damage radically to other predators such as the shortage of food, thus they could be led to a gradual decline in popularity. In terms of flora, it is controvertible that rainforests produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide, and stabilize the Earth’s climate. If humans degenerate these areas, not only would the costs of managing the consecutively to our planet outweigh the costs of conservation but also they are likely to take the toll due to the ecological imbalance. By protecting wild animals and their habitats, we could maintain and reinforce the natural balance of all life on Earth simultaneously.
In conclusion, both wildlife and human life are quintessential in society. This issue could be solved whereby national budgets being allocated proportionately to these aspects.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-09-25 | Albert Armin | 78 | view |
| 2020-09-18 | Cowy | 84 | view |
| 2020-05-23 | oyondev007 | 92 | view |
| 2019-12-18 | truongson3200 | 80 | view |
- The graph below shows the consumption of fish and different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004 78
- Some argue younger are not suitable for important positions in the government while others think this is a good idea Discuss both views and give your opinion 89
- The graph below shows population variation in three wildlife species from 2011 to 2016 in North America and its coastal areas Summarize the information by selecting and reporting main features and make comparisons where relevant 56
- Some people think that in the modern world we are more dependent on each other while others think that people have become more independent 89
- The tables below give information about sales of Fairtrade labelled tea and pineapples in 2010 and 2015 in five European countries 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 369, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...is element owing to certain rationales. On the one hand, the living standard of ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, so, therefore, thus, for instance, i think, in conclusion, such as, as a matter of fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 13.1623246493 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 24.0651302605 104% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 41.998997996 83% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1693.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 312.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42628205128 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99790189343 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.634615384615 0.561755894193 113% => OK
syllable_count: 538.2 506.74238477 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.4787953375 49.4020404114 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.5882352941 106.682146367 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3529411765 20.7667163134 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.05882352941 7.06120827912 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => 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: 0.199115546724 0.244688304435 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0538731306967 0.084324248473 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0401490992538 0.0667982634062 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119490310042 0.151304729494 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0366082573521 0.056905535591 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.0946893788 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 50.2224549098 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.05 8.58950901804 117% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 78.4519038076 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.