Q9 : A growing number of people feel that animals should not be exploited by people and that they should have the same rights as humans, while others argue that humans must employ animals to satisfy their various needs, including uses for food and research. What do you think?
Recently, the use of animals has become the subject of heated debate. Some people assert that human beings do not make use of animals in order to meet their needs, while others argue otherwise. Personally, I believe that both arguments should be given equal weight. In the following essay, the evidence supporting this contention will be discussed alongside relevant examples.
On the one hand, it seems difficult to refute the idea that there are a number of advantages that can be derived from animal use. Perhaps the principal benefit is that livestock can provide essential nutrients, such as protein and fat, for humans, allowing them to lead a healthy life. In addition, cures for various illnesses have been developed by conducting animal tests. To exemplify, research performed by Seoul National University has demonstrated that scientists have found the way to overcome heart disease owing to experiments on pigs. For these reasons, there does seem to be a solid basis for the claim that animal use is necessary.
On the other hand, it seems short-sighted to contend that utilising animals merely brings with it positives. The most oft-cited argument against such a view is that the majority of tests on animals often infringe animal rights considering that these are implemented in a barbaric way, exerting a detrimental influence on physical and mental health of animals. Furthermore, there is a possibility of catastrophic dangers, which humans can face, arising from animal experimentation. This means that a multitude of genetic features of animals are different from those of mankind. Thus, some results stemming from animal experiments can not guarantee that these can fully apply to humans. In light of the above, I also find these persuasive.
In conclusion, it is undeniable that there are a variety of opinions about this topic. However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, it can be concluded that each side of the debate has its strengths, as discussed above.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 267, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a barbaric way" with adverb for "barbaric"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... considering that these are implemented in a barbaric way, exerting a detrimental influence on ph...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 127, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a careful manner" with adverb for "careful"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, it can be concluded that each side of ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, however, if, so, thus, while, in addition, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 10.4138276553 19% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 7.30460921844 205% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 33.0 24.0651302605 137% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1683.0 1615.20841683 104% => OK
No of words: 323.0 315.596192385 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21052631579 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23936324884 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81871840412 2.80592935109 100% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.609907120743 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 542.7 506.74238477 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.0094953458 49.4020404114 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.0 106.682146367 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 20.7667163134 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.05882352941 7.06120827912 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => 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: 0.27388582044 0.244688304435 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0789260136537 0.084324248473 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0714540336812 0.0667982634062 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147687157986 0.151304729494 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0906789878063 0.056905535591 159% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.0946893788 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.4159519038 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.37 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 78.4519038076 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.