Many animals are endangered. Some people argue that we should only protect animals that are useful to humans. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
In many parts of the world, animal species are on the verge of extinction. Many hold a belief that individuals and governments should only preserve animals that are economically beneficial to human. However, in my opinion, all animals that are being threatened should be protected.
Firstly, it is noteworthy that the interdependence of species is the main characteristic of eco-balance. Many zoological studies have shown that although it is invisible, the survivals of living species are closely intertwined in one way or another. Therefore, it is a mistake to overlook that fact that the underpopulation or the extinction of one species could result in demise of other species. For example, poisonous snakes are widely considered as dangerous animals, because snake venom is fatal to humans; however, the underpopulation of snakes in farming regions has resulted in the overpopulation of rats, having devastating effects on agricultural yields and chronic effects on national food security. This example is the illustration of the fact that all threatened animals should be preserved.
Secondly, the counter-argument raised by objectors to this is that we should only protect animals that are useful to humans, because individuals and governments that are on tight budget have to spend money in various social aspects, typically education and medication. Accordingly, due to limited financial sources, people should protect endangered animals selectively. This justification is reasonable to some degree; however, it is incomplete, what they fail to take into account is
that fact that despite the high expenses of giving long-term commitment to animal preservation, ceasing the progressive extinction of threatened animals should be regarded as the top priority to all governments. For instance, even in poor countries which are confronting with budget deficiency, fiscal policies have been introduced to save creatures from extinction due to environmental concerns. From this example, one can observe that monetary burdens should not be cited as a reason to save useful animals only.
In conclusion, all living creatures deserve to be protected for the reasons mentioned above
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-07-09 | maiphuong0610 | 67 | view |
| 2021-07-09 | maiphuong0610 | 56 | view |
| 2021-07-09 | maiphuong0610 | 73 | view |
| 2021-07-09 | maiphuong0610 | 67 | view |
| 2021-07-09 | maiphuong0610 | 67 | view |
- The maps show the change of Happy Valley Shopping Center from 1982 to 2012 87
- Some people believe that university education should focus on the skills of employment for the future Others think they should focus on academic study only Discuss both views and give your own opinion 78
- The chart below shows the average cost of monthly contract for four different mobile in a European country from January to September 2002 measured in euro 73
- the maps show changes between 1960 and now in the station street 84
- The pie charts below show the proportions of energy produced from 5 sources in a country in 1995 and 2003
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 76, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun hold seems to be countable; consider using: 'Many holds'.
Suggestion: Many holds
...species are on the verge of extinction. Many hold a belief that individuals and governmen...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...what they fail to take into account is that fact that despite the high expenses...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tected for the reasons mentioned above
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, first, firstly, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, therefore, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 13.1623246493 190% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 7.30460921844 205% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 25.0 24.0651302605 104% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 41.998997996 112% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 8.3376753507 204% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1857.0 1615.20841683 115% => OK
No of words: 332.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.59337349398 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.2685907696 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22531014981 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 176.041082164 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.551204819277 0.561755894193 98% => OK
syllable_count: 597.6 506.74238477 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 83.5365311754 49.4020404114 169% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.642857143 106.682146367 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7142857143 20.7667163134 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.71428571429 7.06120827912 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.270849388902 0.244688304435 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0978948406718 0.084324248473 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0855460060444 0.0667982634062 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151061606852 0.151304729494 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104107691723 0.056905535591 183% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 13.0946893788 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 50.2224549098 62% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.44 12.4159519038 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.87 8.58950901804 115% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 78.4519038076 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.