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?
It is said that preserving wild animals is profligate as it does not bring any advantages to human development. While I agree that preventing these species from extinction can consume a lot of resources, I believe that conserving wild animals plays a vital role in human existence.
On the one hand, I agree that fighting against causes that pose an extinction threat to wild animals such as climate change, water contamination, deforestation,... requires enormous resources in terms of budget and attempt. Global warming as a result of burning fossil fuels is one of the reasons responsible for the mass extinction of various species. The substitution from fossil fuels to renewable energy technologies can consume a large amount of effort and wealth. Moreover, establishing nature conservation areas to protect wild creatures from poaching demands a vast area of land that can impede the city expansion for increasing population, leading to housing crisis.
Nevertheless, I believe that the advantages of conserving wild animals can outweigh the disadvantages. Firstly, some wild species have several ways to resist bacterias as well as cancer cells. The study and understanding of these animals will help scientists find effective treatments for dangerous diseases. Secondly, each species plays an important role in maintaining ecological balance. In which, the disappearance of a species can lead to the extinction of other species including humans. Therefore, saving wildlife means preventing humans from extinction. In addition, that humans are extremely vulnerable to the forces of nature like other animals gives us a compelling reason to protect the earth in general and wild species in separate.
In conclusion, while preserving wild animals consumes enormous resources, I do not believe that conducting efficient measures to protect them is prodigal.
| 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 |
- 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 84
- Many people choose to travel abroad to learn a foreign language instead of studying in their home town Do the advantages of learning a new language in this way outweigh the disadvantages 56
- The charts below show the results of a survey conducted by a university library to find out the opinions of full time and part time students about its services how happy are you with our IT support offered and current opening hours 73
- 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 78
- Many people choose to travel abroad to learn a foreign language instead of studying in their home town Do the advantages of learning a new language in this way outweigh the disadvantages 56
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 160, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , .
...ange, water contamination, deforestation,... requires enormous resources in terms ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, while, as to, in addition, in conclusion, in general, such as, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 13.1623246493 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1582.0 1615.20841683 98% => OK
No of words: 285.0 315.596192385 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.55087719298 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1193239002 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 176.041082164 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.571929824561 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 492.3 506.74238477 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.8863011284 49.4020404114 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.466666667 106.682146367 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 20.7667163134 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.2666666667 7.06120827912 160% => 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 : 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: 0.163964527185 0.244688304435 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0543856552685 0.084324248473 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0485334905209 0.0667982634062 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115569786761 0.151304729494 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0354464466909 0.056905535591 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.0946893788 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.91 12.4159519038 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.73 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 78.4519038076 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => 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.