It is often said that governments spend too much money on projects to protect wildlife animals while there are other problems that are more important. Do you agree or disagree?
It is commonly acknowledged that numerous actions and supplies have been allocated to the preservation of fauna, which can be seen as wasting. I partly concur with this statement as humans still have more critical aspects to concern on.
There are inevitable reasons for which people take measures on deterring wildlife animals from being extinct, as a result of their duty towards nature. Firstly, the serious repercussions associated with the ecosystem have been escalating on a global scale and much attention should be drawn into renovating the forests devastated by industrial activities. With the regard to responsibility owing to the expansion of urbanization adversely influenced on habitats of diverse fauna, many nations have intended to foster forestation, together with setting up reserves for endangered species. The second point supporting this view is that scientific research requires the survival of animals to aid them in launching experiments. This has led to the demand of conserving these types to benefit people on an account of treatment and alternative food sources.
On the contrary, it is critical to learn that funds should not be focused merely on a particular topic but be made use for other emergent purposes. Initially, some challenges which municipalities have been struggling with relate to social welfare and educational areas, asking for more efforts and resources to alleviate. Specifically, a great amount of expenditure could hopefully enhance run-down living conditions for impoverished families, permit students to pursue elementary education at local schools, or promote job prospects for women suffering unemployment. Consequently, it seems irreversible to protect already extinct species and changing biodiversity situations in many regions, especially ones that have been strongly deteriorated by industrialization. That is to say reserves may take no probable steps to address this phenomenon, causing a waste of time for preservative organizations.
To conclude, I am of the belief that though animals play key roles in the human races, the demerits of too much dedication is detrimental to community and economic perspective.
- Any country should be able to sell goods to other countries without the restrictions of the government Do you agree or disagree 84
- In the future there will be a higher proportion of older people than young people in many countries Is it a positive or negative development 89
- Spoken communication is more powerful than written communication To what extent do you agree or disagree 56
- It is often said that governments spend too much money on projects to protect wildlife animals while there are other problems that are more important Do you agree or disagree 11
- It is often said that governments spend too much money on projects to protect wildlife while there are other problems that are more important Do you agree or disagree 11
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, firstly, if, may, second, so, still, as a result, on the contrary, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 41.998997996 121% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1856.0 1615.20841683 115% => OK
No of words: 328.0 315.596192385 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.65853658537 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25567506705 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21657178178 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 176.041082164 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.673780487805 0.561755894193 120% => OK
syllable_count: 593.1 506.74238477 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => 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: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 42.070383404 49.4020404114 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.769230769 106.682146367 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2307692308 20.7667163134 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.23076923077 7.06120827912 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0681465383593 0.244688304435 28% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0238993556557 0.084324248473 28% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0248252203982 0.0667982634062 37% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0461148986838 0.151304729494 30% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0250262817675 0.056905535591 44% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 13.0946893788 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 50.2224549098 58% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.84 12.4159519038 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.23 8.58950901804 131% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 78.4519038076 168% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.78957915832 128% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 11.2359550562 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.