Some people think that a huge amount of time and money is spent on the protection of wild animals and that this money could be better spent on the human population. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
A multitude of people hold a belief that there is a significant monetary investment in the protection of wild animals, and that this money could be better indulged in the human population. In my viewpoint, I absolutely approve of substituting expenditure on animal protection for social welfare. In this dissertation, the ramifications surrounding this issue will be analyzed in detail.
The argument that we are making a splurge on conserving wild animals is predicated on the extreme cost of constructing and operating a sanctuary. Opponents might reckon that regardless of that apparently extravagant fare, wild animals' preservation areas can be modified to become profitable tourist sites. As long as we perpetuate this operation model, not only will we retrieve the invested assets but we can also generate a sustainable source of income. However, such thinking is only valid to a limited extent, as the intense tourist streams will obviously damage the conserving environment and illegal hunters may also pretend to be visitors to conduct their notorious courses of action. Hence, we are tantamount to provoking endangered species to the verge of extinction which counters the original purpose of protecting them.
It must also be taken into account that the government should spend an adequate amount of money on healthcare and education for citizens. Some people assert that wild animals contain a significant potential for pharmaceutical invention in consequence of precious substances detected in their body such as snake venom, bear bile, etc. Some rare animals are important sources of information for biological research which can also be served as academic materials. What this standpoint overlooks is that we can replace animal-originated substances with ones from other sources in medicine-making. Additionally, there is a ubiquitous endorsement of using three-dimensional models for studying instead of living creatures. Nonetheless, social problems are perennial and require a substantial amount of time, money and endeavour to
handle. Thus, the authority should spend those features on supporting citizens prior to preserving wild animals.
In summary, I stand on my ground that such expenses should be considered for the sake of human population rather than that of animals. Hopefully, sensible decision will be made so that we can take advantage of the enhanced social welfare and protected species simultaneously.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-12-05 | ophongcute@gmail.com | 78 | view |
| 2023-12-03 | abid1 | 78 | view |
| 2023-10-04 | Afdalah Harris | 56 | view |
| 2023-08-17 | mynguyen001 | 78 | view |
| 2023-06-17 | Linhdung | 73 | view |
- Nowadays parents put too much pressure on their children to succeed Is this a negative or positive development 89
- Some people think that a huge amount of time and money is spent on the protection of wild animals and that this money could be better spent on the human population To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion 89
- The graph below gives information about Dubai gold sales from 2000 to 2010 84
- Global warming is one of the most serious issues that the world is facing today What are the causes of global warming and what measures can governments and individuals take to tackle the issue 11
- Some people say that the best way to improve public health is by increasing the number of sports facilities Others however say that this would have little effect on public health and that other measures are required Discuss both these views and give your 95
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 228, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'animals'' or 'animal's'?
Suggestion: animals'; animal's
... that apparently extravagant fare, wild animals preservation areas can be modified to b...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Handle
...ount of time, money and endeavour to handle. Thus, the authority should spend those...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, however, if, look, may, nonetheless, so, thus, in summary, such as, in my view
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 13.1623246493 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 7.85571142285 204% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 24.0651302605 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 44.0 41.998997996 105% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 8.3376753507 204% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2077.0 1615.20841683 129% => OK
No of words: 372.0 315.596192385 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.58333333333 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39173103935 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.2147154765 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 176.041082164 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591397849462 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 666.9 506.74238477 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.961768541 49.4020404114 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.176470588 106.682146367 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8823529412 20.7667163134 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.35294117647 7.06120827912 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.264380766857 0.244688304435 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0788180587209 0.084324248473 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0647072802603 0.0667982634062 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.13555256622 0.151304729494 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0944464479426 0.056905535591 166% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 13.0946893788 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 50.2224549098 66% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.08 12.4159519038 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.45 8.58950901804 122% => OK
difficult_words: 136.0 78.4519038076 173% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 9.78957915832 133% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.7795591182 148% => 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.