Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many people argue that it is useless to spend protection on wild animals because human no longer needs them. I completely disapprove of this idea.
In my point of view, it is absurd to say that animals have no place in the 21st century. Every organism has the right to exist on Earth. Therefore, human can't behave rudely to those species. Moreover, there is no convincing reason why we should wipe out them so we don't need to destroy their habitats to supply land or accommodation for the world's population. Otherwise, there is plenty of room for both human and wild creatures exist together without damaging each other and it would probably create various environments for life all over the world.
I also disagree with the statement that protecting those animals is a waste of resources. Their habitats as well as their diversity play a crucial role in human survival. For example, without the amount of rain supplied annually, human's crops would be failed which consequently lead to the people's poverty in some remote areas. Besides, because of destroying the tropical forests, the human may face to the climate change and effects of greenhouse occurring to our planet would sooner or later damage life's people. By protecting these habitats, human maintains the natural balance of species and contribute to conserving the diversity on Earth.
In conclusion, people have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist. Therefore, I believe that human would give out methods to protect all kinds of them.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-06-11 | Corn Cake | 61 | view |
| 2023-06-11 | Corn Cake | 73 | view |
| 2023-06-08 | Aung | 78 | view |
| 2023-01-06 | ielts_tony | 56 | view |
| 2022-10-31 | Charles Le | 56 | view |
- Many criminals commit further crime as soon as they are released from prison What do you think are the causes of this What possible solutions can you suggest 61
- Wild animals have no place in the 21st century so protecting them is a waste of resources To what extent do you agree or disagree 61
- Wild animals have no place in the 21st century so protecting them is a waste of resources To what extent do you agree or disagree 56
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 154, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ght to exist on Earth. Therefore, human cant behave rudely to those species. Moreove...
^^^^
Line 2, column 265, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...eason why we should wipe out them so we dont need to destroy their habitats to suppl...
^^^^
Line 2, column 341, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'worlds'' or 'world's'?
Suggestion: worlds'; world's
...to supply land or accommodation for the worlds population. Otherwise, there is plenty ...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 290, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...e failed which consequently lead to the peoples poverty in some remote areas. Besides, ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 47, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...clusion, people have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist. Therefore, I...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, consequently, if, may, moreover, so, therefore, well, for example, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 13.1623246493 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1270.0 1615.20841683 79% => OK
No of words: 254.0 315.596192385 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0 5.12529762239 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99216450694 4.20363070211 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58230504329 2.80592935109 92% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 176.041082164 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.629921259843 0.561755894193 112% => OK
syllable_count: 398.7 506.74238477 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.9130840974 49.4020404114 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.7142857143 106.682146367 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1428571429 20.7667163134 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06120827912 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.01903807615 100% => 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: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.196823953132 0.244688304435 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0701809422103 0.084324248473 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0818335602274 0.0667982634062 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136278992531 0.151304729494 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0428828804132 0.056905535591 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.0946893788 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 50.2224549098 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.42 12.4159519038 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.94 8.58950901804 104% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 78.4519038076 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 9.78957915832 66% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
More content wanted.
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.