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.
The writer and the speaker present different perspectives on the possible strategies to prevent sales of rhino horns and thus protect the rhino extinction. The author believes that the proposed ideas will be helpful to save rhinos while the narrator expresses strong disagreement with the solutions.
First, the topic of discussion revolves around the success of the dehorn process to the survival of the rhinos. The professor considers the dehorn process impractical since it needs time and money to find the rhinos in the wild and implement with care. On the top of that, even the issue of time and money is resolved, the professor is highly skeptical about the chance of survival of rhinos after removing the horns. She bolsters her point by mentioning the purposes of the horn such as to dig for food, to guide the toddlers and save them from danger and concludes that the rhino will not be able to cope up in the wild without the horns. In contrast, the author suggests dehorning process for its' success to stop rhino poaching during early 1990s.
Second, the dispute continues to the efficacy of educating the consumers. The professor is not convinced with the approach since the people have strong belief of rhino horns as medicine for more than thousand years. So the strong cultural belief of the people will not let them change their consumer behavior. Moreover, educating them will not help people changing their minds who already have strong beliefs of their ancient culture. On the other hand, the writer believes that educating customer will lower the sales of rhino horns as medicine.
Last but not the least, the debate extends to the legalization of rhino horns by the government. The speaker doesn't vie with the idea since it seems an unpredictable solution. For instance, after justifying the business officially, total number of sales will be increased and the demand for the horns will be raised too. It is because more people will be eager to buy the horns after legalization. As a consequence, excess demands will increase the price and the poachers would again start killing rhinos and sell the horns at high price. So the idea of selling cheap rhino horns as suggested by the writer would not be declined, instead the rate would be higher as elaborated by the professor.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 63, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...scussion revolves around the success of the dehorn process to the survival of the rhinos. ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 137, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
... of the rhinos. The professor considers the dehorn process impractical since it needs time...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 201, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a thousand'.
Suggestion: a thousand
...f rhino horns as medicine for more than thousand years. So the strong cultural belief of...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 110, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...no horns by the government. The speaker doesnt vie with the idea since it seems an unp...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 664, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[3]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...lined, instead the rate would be higher as elaborated by the professor.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, moreover, second, so, thus, while, as to, for instance, in contrast, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 30.3222958057 181% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1918.0 1373.03311258 140% => OK
No of words: 389.0 270.72406181 144% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.93059125964 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44106776838 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4924970513 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 145.348785872 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498714652956 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 576.9 419.366225166 138% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.4495677293 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.555555556 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6111111111 21.698381199 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.16666666667 7.06452816374 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 4.33554083885 323% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.313490063857 0.272083759551 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10413763072 0.0996497079465 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0701450183127 0.0662205650399 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.198946385573 0.162205337803 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0376179224593 0.0443174109184 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.