Society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction of those species is the result of human activities.
There are many animals that existed a hundred years ago, but do not now. Could societal intervention have saved some near extinct animals? Some believe that society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction is due to human activity. I mostly agree with this claim, but would also like to make the point that society should make efforts to save endangered species when they have the means to do so.
Firstly, the society is obligated to repair the damage they have inflicted on nature. Nature was here before the buildings and homes were built. As the population burgeoned, humans started to encroach on nature. One example of society’s deleterious impact on nature is the Great Barrier Reef. Over the years, the once vibrant reefs have been bleached, due to water pollution from boating and other recreational activities. The reefs that once held an inchoate number of species is now not suitable to house them, bringing them to near extinction. Society should modify their behavior, so that the reef has time to recuperate and once again become the colorful reef that garnered attention from around the world.
Additionally, society should make efforts to save endangered species even if they were not due to human activities. Natural causes like tornados, tsunamis, and bushfires can cause harm to a species. If humans are equipped to handle such scenarios, it is in their best interest to do so. Take, for example, the Australian fires. They were caused by intense heat leading to a fire that lasted for six days. Without human intervention, it would have caused more damage than it did. Firefighters were able to rescue endangered animals, such as koalas, from the fire and bringing them to safety.
In summation, society should make efforts to save endangered species when the potential for extinction is because of human and natural activity. In doing so, we are not only keeping the animals best interest in mind, but also ours. Therefore, sometimes intervening during natural causes can lead to a deleterious affect, so intervention is only needed when it indirectly affects society as to not tilt the balance between human and animal.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-08-31 | savaga1883 | 66 | view |
| 2023-10-02 | Alex Cheng | 54 | view |
| 2023-09-09 | graceeehgq | 66 | view |
| 2023-07-17 | soap | 50 | view |
| 2023-07-17 | M1randa | 50 | view |
- The following appeared in a memo from the new vice president of Sartorian a company that manufactures men s clothing Five years ago at a time when we had difficulties in obtaining reliable supplies of high quality wool fabric we discontinued production of 70
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household 50
- Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition 50
- The following appeared in an article written by Dr Karp an anthropologist Twenty years ago Dr Field a noted anthropologist visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather tha 56
- Society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction of those species is the result of human activities 50
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, so, therefore, as to, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 58.6224719101 80% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1832.0 2235.4752809 82% => OK
No of words: 361.0 442.535393258 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.07479224377 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35889894354 4.55969084622 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59254029548 2.79657885939 93% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 215.323595506 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.529085872576 0.4932671777 107% => OK
syllable_count: 588.6 704.065955056 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.9148776227 60.3974514979 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.2380952381 118.986275619 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1904761905 23.4991977007 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.47619047619 5.21951772744 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.381308414758 0.243740707755 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.115774583681 0.0831039109588 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.177845872413 0.0758088955206 235% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.26246443224 0.150359130593 175% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.139698444094 0.0667264976115 209% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 14.1392134831 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.8420337079 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.83 12.1639044944 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 100.480337079 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 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: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.