Society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction of those species is the result of human activities.
Many would say that society should make efforts as much as possible to save all endangered species. They insist that saving species in danger is an indispensable accountability of mankind. Also, it is true that harms in other species directly and indirectly affect human, so the argument is understandable considering importance of saving ecosystems. However, I still disagree with this viewpoint.
First and foremost, saving all species from extinction is not plausible because of limited resources. One may asserts that we probably will cost in one day if any action is not taken for the vanished species. Even though the assertion might true, we have no choice but to take that risks because we are hardly able to afford to take the actions within limited government budgets and lacking human resources. To be specific, before taking any action, we have to determine whether the species is really in danger and find out the exact reasons of the extinction, which needs highly paid expertises. Imagine we decide to save certain species. Any treatment to save the species whose habitat is a jungle middle in Africa will ensue enormous time and budget, consequently, we cannot focus on more impending problems of ourselves, such as ensuring health or safety of the citizens and maintaining well-being of the whole nation.
Moreover, saving only species which are jeopardized due to human is more desirable in that it is beneficial for the nature to minimize human intervention. To be more specific, there is natural food-web in the ecosystem which means certain species has relationships with many others. We cannot perfectly predict what will happen after we alter the law of jungle, so any little alteration for saving one species might cause the annihilation of other many species. Of course, we have to call for species whose danger is our fault, which is stemmed from the same principle: minimize the human intervention. Therefore, saving only species whose anticipating disappearance is fault of human will be the most moderate and reasonable action.
In conclusion, I firmly think the argument stating human have to save all endangered species is problematic in that it is neither plausible nor salutary. In this regard, the given statement that we should take actions only when the potential extinction of species is responsible for us.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...I still disagree with this viewpoint. First and foremost, saving all species f...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ning well-being of the whole nation. Moreover, saving only species which are ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, however, if, may, moreover, really, so, still, therefore, well, in conclusion, of course, such as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 58.6224719101 77% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1970.0 2235.4752809 88% => OK
No of words: 381.0 442.535393258 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17060367454 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83295614081 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 215.323595506 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538057742782 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 629.1 704.065955056 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => 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: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.2238482076 60.3974514979 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.882352941 118.986275619 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4117647059 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.29411764706 5.21951772744 159% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.326965226499 0.243740707755 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.116181594779 0.0831039109588 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0792564572271 0.0758088955206 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.23366767149 0.150359130593 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0777418131015 0.0667264976115 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.1639044944 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 100.480337079 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => 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: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.