Some people believe that it is more beneficial to allocate a great deal of resources to human beings as opposed to sheltering animals’ habitats. I completely disagree with this opinion due to two main reasons as follow.
Firstly, I claim that there is not enough money and time spent on the protection of wildlife. As well as this, although deforestation is become increasingly commonplace, conserve sanctuaries have not constructed widely to offer shelters for animals to reproduce, which leads an array of species to the verge of extinction. Furthermore, the campaigns for protecting animals usually hold by charity organizations or the authorities. If every individuals were aware of the importance of such kinds of animals, they would join hands to not only prevent the actions which are detrimental to animal lives but also donate more money to improve animals’ living standard.
Secondly, people make a great contribution to destroying animals’ environment, coupled with rendering them to never reemerge, they have to assume responsibilities for their actions. In fact, a wide range of industrial and agricultural activities that are extremely polluting the habitats of animals are conducted for commercial purposes and recreational pursuits. Take, for example, forest which is home for animal species has been cut down to make way for the construction of industries or holiday resorts. Another case in point, millions of tons a school of fish are caught daily to meet food consumption or export to other nations. In addition, rampant hunting is increasingly out of control, numerous animals are being poached to get fur or other valuable parts. Consider, ivories and horns for which many elephants and rhinos are being killed on a yearly basis.
In conclusion, I do not believe it is not a good idea to not spend money and time protecting animals’ habitats. Furthermore I claim the government and residents at large should allocate more resources for improving animals’ living conditions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 210, Rule ID: AS_FOLLOW[1]
Message: Did you mean 'as follows'?
Suggestion: as follows
...th this opinion due to two main reasons as follow. Firstly, I claim that there is not ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 113, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
... and time protecting animals’ habitats. Furthermore I claim the government and residents at...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, if, second, secondly, so, well, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 7.85571142285 25% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1700.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 317.0 315.596192385 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36277602524 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07468558536 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.621451104101 0.561755894193 111% => OK
syllable_count: 534.6 506.74238477 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.5318083001 49.4020404114 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.428571429 106.682146367 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6428571429 20.7667163134 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.42857142857 7.06120827912 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.21275689477 0.244688304435 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0776314076172 0.084324248473 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0684998053559 0.0667982634062 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142576924826 0.151304729494 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0549316877327 0.056905535591 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.36 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 78.4519038076 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.