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?
It is believed that time and money investment in wildlife conservation should be allocated to human beings instead. I strongly disapprove of this notion due to the importance of ecological balance and vital contribution of undomesticated creatures in economic growth.
The primary reason for my belief is that the biodiversity loss resulting from the extinction of endangered animals will become serious without any preservation actions. When wild creatures are on the brink of disappearance, they are likely to vanish and affect the hierarchy of prey and predator in the food chain. For example, if a creature disappeared, animals which are their predators would face a lack of food, eventually becoming threatened in the long run. As a result, the ripple effect will be detrimental to the survival of both species and mankind.
Another possible justification is that wild animals bring about a variety of economic benefits for a nation. Eco-tourism services depending on wildlife play a key role in attracting visitors and creating job opportunities for local residents. One prime example is that the Vietnamese government organise many field trips to the National reserve so tourists can immerse themselves into the wild and interact with certain species. Consequently, this not only helps to increase inhabitants’ income but also promotes economic growth.
In conclusion, I firmly believe that it is better to put in a great deal of money and time in wildlife conservation rather than on citizens. This is due to the major part of these species in ecosystem and economic advantages. It is recommended that the government should enact regulations to abandon endangered animals’ huntings or trading and allocate a national budget to preserve them.
| 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 |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 305, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun field seems to be countable; consider using: 'many fields'.
Suggestion: many fields
...that the Vietnamese government organise many field trips to the National reserve so touris...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, if, so, for example, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 41.998997996 90% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1487.0 1615.20841683 92% => OK
No of words: 276.0 315.596192385 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.38768115942 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11279542841 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 176.041082164 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.630434782609 0.561755894193 112% => OK
syllable_count: 477.9 506.74238477 94% => 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: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 29.5878993337 49.4020404114 60% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 114.384615385 106.682146367 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2307692308 20.7667163134 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.53846153846 7.06120827912 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => 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: 0.150949506666 0.244688304435 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0496724059877 0.084324248473 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0424075993768 0.0667982634062 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0937926891931 0.151304729494 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0429839049412 0.056905535591 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.0946893788 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.98 12.4159519038 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.88 8.58950901804 115% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 78.4519038076 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.