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 reading and lecture talk about the possible solutions to protect rhinoceroses from extinction. The author of the reading feels that there are three possible ways to prevent the illegal hunting of rhinoceroses. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. She believes that the proposed methods have significant weaknesses.
To begin with, the author argues that the first possible solution to protect rhinoceroses is dehorning. The article mentions that dehorning is a process that involves removing horns from living rhinoceroses. The lecturer challenges this specific argument. She claims that taking away horns from rhinoceroses is not a practical solution and requires many procedures. Additionally, she says that dehorning will reduce their life chances because rhinoceroses usually use horns to protect themselves and get food.
Secondly, the writer suggests that customers' education is the second possible method to prevent rhinoceroses hinting. The lecturer, however, refutes this by mentioning that educating customers is ineffective. She elaborates on this by noting that customers have ancient and robust beliefs that horns can be used as medicine. She says that strong and old opinions will not change easily.
Finally, the author posits that government should sell the horns that they already have. Moreover, in the article, it is stated that in this way, hunting rhinoceroses will not be profitable. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that this way is unpredictable. She notes that this method will make rhino poaching legal, leading to an increase in demand, and with the market increasing, the price of rhino will also climb noticeably.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 215, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...nt the illegal hunting of rhinoceroses. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Line 5, column 36, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'customers'' or 'customer's'?
Suggestion: customers'; customer's
... Secondly, the writer suggests that customers education is the second possible method...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1424.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 256.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.5625 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86406718835 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55859375 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 434.7 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.9095118673 49.2860985944 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.7647058824 110.228320801 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.0588235294 21.698381199 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.47058823529 7.06452816374 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.158056183705 0.272083759551 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0453840072491 0.0996497079465 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0419385649251 0.0662205650399 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0924890247651 0.162205337803 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0368928352919 0.0443174109184 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.38 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.