Society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction of those species is the result of human activities.
Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position
In the world today, a significant amount of species are going into extinction which could be caused by a number of factors (climatic changes, human intervention, etc.). Some people would say extinction is a natural process of life because dinosaurs were at a time, present, and the Earth is in a dynamic state. Then comes the question, Should people try to save endangered species? The prompt argues that people should only try to save these animals if they are the cause of its extinction. I mostly agree with this. However in some extreme cases, I do believe that society should make efforts to help endangered species when they resulted in it.
To begin, nature has significantly had a power over all living things in the earth from animals to plants to bacteria. Nature sometimes require some animals to go extinct for another animal to serve a greater purpose for the earth. Perhaps in a scenario where the occurrence of an animal precludes another and this animal is useful to regulate some properties which may be important for the growth of other animals. There could perhaps be a reason why animals have lower number as the food chain increases. For example, a lot of eagles are going extinct; maybe nature doctored it this way because some of the birds that they prey on help to disperse the seeds of some trees. In this case, it would be better not to interfere with nature. If one were to interfere with this, it could harm Earth in unforeseen ways.
Furthermore, in Earth, there is a progression; Earth has been undergoing changes. From the big bang, a lot of animals and plants have lived and died and thier species have gone extinct and many more species would evolve. The human element could be nature’s design for species to undergo change. There is a possibility that if dinosaurs did not die, human beings may not have evolved. Nature requires species to go extinct because the earth is dynamic and there is no constancy. It is possible that humans intervening in helping species may not be helpful at all; it may even be detrimental. Therefore one could argue that humans should not be concerned about altering nature.
Admittedly, in extreme cases, humans should intervene in helping species when they resulted in it. For example, animals like the elephants are dying because of hunting for their tusk. The people of South Africa hunt elephants for their greed. In this case, it may be possible that humans are causing the extinction in a way Nature does not intend and if laws are not placed checking the hunting of these animals, then their numbers would continue to decline. This could be an instance where one could argue that human beings should put efforts in reducing the decline in population of other species.
In conclusion, humans should not save endangered species in which they caused the extinction. However in some cases, I do concede that they should.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 165, Rule ID: DOUBLE_PUNCTUATION
Message: Two consecutive dots
Suggestion: .
...limatic changes, human intervention, etc.. Some people would say extinction is a n...
^^
Line 1, column 516, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...s extinction. I mostly agree with this. However in some extreme cases, I do believe tha...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 597, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...ybe nature doctored it this way because some of the birds that they prey on help to dispers...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 592, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...ful at all; it may even be detrimental. Therefore one could argue that humans should not ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 94, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...es in which they caused the extinction. However in some cases, I do concede that they s...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, for example, in conclusion, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.4196629213 193% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 58.6224719101 106% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2400.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 497.0 442.535393258 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82897384306 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72159896747 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48215701388 2.79657885939 89% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 215.323595506 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.450704225352 0.4932671777 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 759.6 704.065955056 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.464541813 60.3974514979 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.8888888889 118.986275619 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4074074074 23.4991977007 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.44444444444 5.21951772744 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.19370342706 0.243740707755 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0652778929229 0.0831039109588 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0612011946104 0.0758088955206 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.139179327068 0.150359130593 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0553987776947 0.0667264976115 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.5 14.1392134831 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.8420337079 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.1743820225 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.73 12.1639044944 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.52 8.38706741573 90% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 100.480337079 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 Out of 6
---------------------
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.