The search for mythical creatures is a waste of time and money.
It is believed that investigating mysterious species is the toss off time and budget. In my opinion, discovering new creatures is needed because scientists still not fully know about the world. For example, in the deepest seas or on the highest mountains we have not searched it.
On the other hand, skeptics who are completely trust in science supposed that it is no use to find out new species due to we have known enough about the world and denied all the evidence such as photos, videos… that is captured accidentally. They said it is just a kind of typical animal. In addition, conducting a survey in an extreme region is time-consuming and costs a fortune. Imagines, to deal with the hardest climates modern technology is required even so people especially experts who have specific experience. It takes many months even years to do the research in these enormous places. As a result, opponents have more reasons to object cryptobiology.
In contrast, according to tropical biologists commonly find that half or more of the insect species they capture in the rainforest canopy are new to science. Undiscovered fish and other species are frequently found in the deep sea. Up to half of all the plant species in the Amazon are still scientifically undocumented. Being outside the mainstream of traditional science makes cryptobiologist limited in supports also sponsors lead to some dedicated chasers spend big sums of their own money to finance their quest because they have no choice. Despite being endured sneers even booted out of the biology department, they still follow to the end and gain considerable achievements. For example, the Lazarus species that have been rediscovered after having been presumed extinct, the Laotian rock rat, discovered in 1996, is now the sole known representative of a rodent family that was thought to have vanished eleven million years ago and so on.
In conclusion, seeking myth of creatures is costly in both time and money but it is necessary and worth it if we want to know more about the earth. So we should celebrate the intrepid efforts of cryptobiologists not only their efforts but also their adventurous spirit rather than be disdainful.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 89, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
...trust in science supposed that it is no use to find out new species due to we have ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, so, still, even so, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in contrast, kind of, such as, as a result, in my opinion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 13.1623246493 160% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 7.85571142285 13% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 24.0651302605 112% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1831.0 1615.20841683 113% => OK
No of words: 364.0 315.596192385 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03021978022 5.12529762239 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36792674256 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92250237062 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 176.041082164 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.596153846154 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 573.3 506.74238477 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.76152304609 210% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.3562152304 49.4020404114 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.705882353 106.682146367 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4117647059 20.7667163134 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.94117647059 7.06120827912 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 3.4128256513 322% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.110389820952 0.244688304435 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0333683396705 0.084324248473 40% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0506319689172 0.0667982634062 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0816624602287 0.151304729494 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0588894273501 0.056905535591 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.0946893788 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 50.2224549098 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.4159519038 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.06 8.58950901804 105% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 78.4519038076 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.