Some people feel that humans should be able to dig for oil anywhere, as long as it benefits mankind. Other believes that certain areas of land should be reserved for animals use. Which do you think is better?
The question is whether human beings should excavate every point of land to obtain oil and gas or they have to preserve some areas for animal's life. Everyone with regard to his private view point can maintain a specific direction toward this statement; however, I am inclined to declare that saving and supporting animals can be more effective not only for animals, but also for next generation of humans. I feel this way for some reasons, which I will explore them in following essay to strengthen my point of view:
To begin with, nobody could overlook that animals play a crucial and pivotal role in people's life. Food industry strongly depends on animals to supply needed food of the world. On the other hand, with improving technology, the drug industry has been optimized in recent years; therefore, researchers are attempting to apply some animals' toxic, enzyme and cells to produce the medicine products. Such a lovely population helps the nations to empower the economic circumstance such as a powerful role in the trade like importing and exporting beasts' skin, feathers and fur and list goes on. One should not forget that all of this condition will be useful until we do not exaggerate in using animals. In short, if oil explorers dig numerous lands, spontaneously the animals' habitat will be destroyed and it goes without saying that their population will reduce.
Second reason for my claim lies the fact that oil excavation procedure can have destructive consequence in environment. One should notice that when oil is exploited from underground, it can leak to rocks, vegetables and around areas. Such a harmful pollution will be able to decline the animals' density in an area; subsequently, they would rather migrate to other regions to cope with this problem. By the same token this occurrence will impinge on the ecology of area negatively. The epitome of this is that some plants rely on some animals, birds or insects for pollinating. If there are not the organisms to help them in spreading their seeds or spores, plants population will also dwindle and even more they may be extinct.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that conserving of animals' habitats is vital as much as gaining natural resources such as oil and gas. One should, nevertheless, take this issue into account as a key factor in human's future. Nowadays since people are superseding electricity for daily consumptions in vehicles or heating; as a result, discovering a large number of areas for oil can be useless and even adverse.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-06-17 | peerless alex | 90 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 764, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'animals'' or 'animal's'?
Suggestion: animals'; animal's
...s dig numerous lands, spontaneously the animals habitat will be destroyed and it goes w...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 288, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'animals'' or 'animal's'?
Suggestion: animals'; animal's
...l pollution will be able to decline the animals density in an area; subsequently, they ...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 349, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...es or heating; as a result, discovering a large number of areas for oil can be useless and even a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, may, nevertheless, second, so, then, therefore, as for, i feel, in conclusion, in short, such as, as a result, to begin with, with regard to, by the same token, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 15.1003584229 93% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 9.8082437276 194% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 13.8261648746 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 43.0788530466 74% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 52.1666666667 104% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.0752688172 173% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2111.0 1977.66487455 107% => OK
No of words: 422.0 407.700716846 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00236966825 4.8611393121 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53239876712 4.48103885553 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67712214828 2.67179642975 100% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 212.727598566 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.592417061611 0.524837075471 113% => OK
syllable_count: 670.5 618.680645161 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 9.59856630824 52% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.994623655914 0% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.6003584229 83% => 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: 24.0 20.1344086022 119% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.9515680204 48.9658058833 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.176470588 100.406767564 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8235294118 20.6045352989 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.2352941176 5.45110844103 224% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8709677419 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.331194055464 0.236089414692 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0979482077012 0.076458572812 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0688354037232 0.0737576698707 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.204490998763 0.150856017488 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0403416584997 0.0645574589148 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 11.7677419355 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 58.1214874552 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.1575268817 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 10.9000537634 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.32 8.01818996416 116% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 86.8835125448 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 10.002688172 170% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.0537634409 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.247311828 127% => 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: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.