Society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction of those species is the result of human activities.
Humans’ activities are causing huge amount of harm to nature in every single day. In a result of this, again we are the ones who are affected the most. Indisputably, Extinction is a natural process but it is speeded up due to our actions. Yet, it is not the inevitable end of the species since we do have a power to save them.
To begin with, The ecology has a balance with various species, where each animal and plant is interconnected. If one of the specious cannot survive, this event triggers other specious to extinct. Therefore, resulting in serious imbalances in the nature. For example, flies are not the most lovable creatures in the nature, they are dirty and annoy people with a buzzing noise. At first look, it is logical to say that they are so small to have any holly mission in the nature. However, flies help nature to recycle the elements on the earth. Feeding on decaying animals and substances, digesting them releases protein in nature again. Moreover, insects and frogs eat flies to have their bodies, which is full of nutrition. Therefore, human cannot benefit from nature without the flies transforming substances into its basic elements. Even though, people do not harm flies in any way, policy that saves flies from extinction helps to save nature and the future of the humanity.
In addition to that, people have more direct reliance on some certain animals. While cows, pigs, chickens are needed for nutrition, we have emotional relation with dogs, cats, and horses since the beginning of the history. Let’s say that there was an outbreak --irrelevant to human’s actions-- between dogs and they are about to extinct. Who would say to leave them alone? Most of the people have dogs and bonds to them. In this case, policy in the prompt will not have any power among these people, which try to save their own dogs first rather than implementing the policy. Since this policy might cause disputes and decrease the respect to authority, it must not be implemented in the first place.
On the opposite side, people can support laissez-faire principle in the nature, which tells to leave wild animals if they are not affected by our own actions. Unfortunately, this idea has flaws because it mostly represents hypocrisy. Proposition assumes that animals do not have any difficulties in nature and they do not suffer. Scientist says the opposite, animals have a sense of fear because they have to live with danger and be stressful all day long. While we help a child in Africa dying because of natural conditions, we cannot help a lion freezing due to a sickness in the nature. They both suffer and are scared of the cold death. This is why laissez-faire policy must not be supported. Helping humans and helping animals must be our concerns whether it happens because of natural causes or not.
In conclusion, the ecosystem is in our responsibility because it affects human the most when some part of it have issues. Indisputably, we should not harm and cause a chain of event in the nature. Still, we might need to have a chain of events in a good way for saving it. Each species have a role to play in the earth, therefore, ours must be to stop extinction by the policies.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 93, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'leaving'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'tell' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: leaving
...re principle in the nature, which tells to leave wild animals if they are not affected b...
^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 274, Rule ID: EACH_EVERY_NNS[1]
Message: 'Each' and 'every' are used with singular. Did you mean 'all'?
Suggestion: All
... of events in a good way for saving it. Each species have a role to play in the eart...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, look, moreover, so, still, therefore, while, for example, in addition, in conclusion, to begin with, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 33.0505617978 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 83.0 58.6224719101 142% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2676.0 2235.4752809 120% => OK
No of words: 557.0 442.535393258 126% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80430879713 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85807034144 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60602586368 2.79657885939 93% => OK
Unique words: 275.0 215.323595506 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493716337522 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 847.8 704.065955056 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 33.0 20.2370786517 163% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 23.0359550562 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.5096148983 60.3974514979 52% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 81.0909090909 118.986275619 68% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8787878788 23.4991977007 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.36363636364 5.21951772744 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0906749221524 0.243740707755 37% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0249065873998 0.0831039109588 30% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0337853974464 0.0758088955206 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0687611929293 0.150359130593 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0461352436349 0.0667264976115 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.6 14.1392134831 68% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 48.8420337079 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 12.1743820225 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.26 12.1639044944 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.03 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 100.480337079 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.2143820225 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.