Although the sale of rhinoceros horns is illegal worldwide, rhinoceroses (Rhinos) are commonly poached (hunted illegally) for their horns, which can be sold for tens of thousands of dollars per kilogram. Rhino horns are so valuable that one type of rhino is already extinct because poachers killed too many of them. All rhinos may soon become extinct unless something is done to help save them. Several ideas have been suggested
The first idea is for wildlife experts to “dehorn" Rhinos living in the wild. Dehorning means removing the horns of living rhinos to make them less attractive to poachers Horns can be removed without hurting the animals if medical equipment and drugs to calm the animals are used When this strategy was tried on a small scale in the early 1990s; none of the rhinos dehorned at the time were killed by poachers.
The second possibility is to educate consumers. The majority of rhino horn sold is used in medicines Although rhino horn is believed to have health benefits, this belief has no scientific foundation Rhino horn consists almost entirely of keratin, the same material found in human hair and nails. Keratin has no known health value. Educating consumers about keratin could greatly decrease the demand for rhino horn
The third possibility is to legalize government sales of rhino horn. Some governments have large amounts of horn, taken from poachers they have arrested This horn is often kept in storage. However, if government sales were legal, large quantities of horn that governments already have could be sold at very low prices Poachers kill rhinos because consumers pay high prices for their horns If governments started selling cheap rhino horn, rhino poaching would no longer be profitable and would probably stop, at least for a while. That might help endangered rhino populations to recover.
Both the reading and the lecturer discuss the extinction of rhinoceros because of their horns poaching. The author has suggested some ideas as saving horns solutions, however, the lecturer rebuts those ideas.
First of all, the author of the reading believes that dehorning the hornes can decline the attraction of hornes against poachers in the wild, so the drugs and medical equipment should be used to dehorn rhinos without hurting to them. While the professor contracts this argument. He mentions that the dehorning is unpractical even if there is enough time and money to do that. Also, The rhinos usually use their horns for digging for water, protecting themselves, and so on.
Second, the author of the reading passage claims that educating consumers can persuade them to avoid killing the Rhinos because there is no scientific foundation about the medical properties of hornes. Whereas the lecturer believes that the education programs don't have the ability to change the consumers' minds, this is because these beliefs are old and strong among the people, and they won't be changed.
Finally, the author of the reading passage states that the legalization of government may cause the decline of hornes prices thus the poachers will not have enough motivation for killing the rhinos. On the contrary, the professor points out that the results of the legalization of selling horns by governments are unpredictable. In fact, it leads to an increase in the demands of hornes and may lead to increasing the prices. Therefore this solution is not a rational solution that prevents poachers from killing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 234, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “While” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... dehorn rhinos without hurting to them. While the professor contracts this argument. ...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 474, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ater, protecting themselves, and so on. Second, the author of the reading passag...
^^^
Line 3, column 261, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...er believes that the education programs dont have the ability to change the consumer...
^^^^
Line 4, column 426, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
... and may lead to increasing the prices. Therefore this solution is not a rational solutio...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, second, so, therefore, thus, whereas, while, in fact, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1348.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 261.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16475095785 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0193898071 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60691299456 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.563218390805 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 407.7 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.4274300506 49.2860985944 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.333333333 110.228320801 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.75 21.698381199 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.6666666667 7.06452816374 151% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.239702650286 0.272083759551 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0819179627702 0.0996497079465 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0826790178729 0.0662205650399 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135733326226 0.162205337803 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0733370434114 0.0443174109184 165% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25 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.