Without a shadow of a doubt, it is our most important responsibility to save the earth from natural and anthropogenic threats. An unanswered question in this area is that governments should provide money for which kinds of environmental conservation projects. Although some arguments assert that the most critical problem that requires government involvement is water and air contamination, I believe otherwise. Maintaining that government should concentrate on protecting wildlife habitats from destruction. In the following essay, I will elaborate on my viewpoint through two compelling reasons.
The first exquisite point corroborating my stance on this subject is that destroying animal habitats creates an unstable ecosystem. Throughout humankind’s history and every corner of our rocky planet, human activities such as deforestation for expanding agricultural lands, overconsumption of earth resources, and so forth have damaged natural territories. As a result, a considerable number of animals have experienced extinction or will be extinct soon. Sooner or later, prey animals whose predators have disappeared will proliferate and make way for the shortage of resources and unsustainable ecosystem. Given the unconducive results and high cost of displacement programs, governments should provide money for building natural parks and inform people about the importance of wildlife protection.
Another reason to be mentioned is conserving natural places is less likely to encounter impediments and disagreements. To be more specific, harnessing renewable sources like wind and solar energy to generate electricity does not pollute the air, but it negatively affects the surrounding area. For example, wind turbines produce unbearable noises, kill local birds and use up a significant portion of land. In addition to adverse environmental impacts, investment in these types of energy is shortsighted because they are inconsistent, and their repairs and maintenance expenses are high. On the other hand, due to the political powers of big corporations, not only do they hamper governments from enacting environmental laws, but they also escape from these legislations.
Reflecting upon the grounds mentioned above, one soon realizes that natural habitat protection is a feasible option for governments to save the earth.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, so, for example, in addition, such as, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 15.1003584229 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 9.8082437276 61% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 13.8261648746 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.0286738351 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 43.0788530466 51% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 52.1666666667 73% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 8.0752688172 223% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1991.0 1977.66487455 101% => OK
No of words: 340.0 407.700716846 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.85588235294 4.8611393121 120% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29407602571 4.48103885553 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.31489638787 2.67179642975 124% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 212.727598566 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.658823529412 0.524837075471 126% => OK
syllable_count: 626.4 618.680645161 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.51630824373 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 9.59856630824 31% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.6003584229 78% => 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 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.7851140497 48.9658058833 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.4375 100.406767564 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.25 20.6045352989 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6875 5.45110844103 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.85842293907 207% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88709677419 20% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.160637147884 0.236089414692 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0488152687583 0.076458572812 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0475778776908 0.0737576698707 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106409848043 0.150856017488 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0556025529836 0.0645574589148 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 11.7677419355 143% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 58.1214874552 57% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 10.1575268817 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.71 10.9000537634 153% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.3 8.01818996416 128% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 86.8835125448 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.002688172 90% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.247311828 166% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 Out of 30
---------------------
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.