Some people believe that society should try to save every plant and animal species, despite the expense to humans in effort, time, and financial well-being. Others believe that society need not make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
Flora and fauna, preys and predators, life and death, all play a significant role in this universe. Without plants, there is no food for animals. Without animals, a wildlife can be wanting. The author states that some people believe that every aspect of the flora and fauna life should be conserved even if it is at the expense of human's essential resources such as time and money. While some individuals believe that this is how the society needs to proceed, others believe that such extreme measures are not required and the opportunity costs are not worth it. I strongly advocate this view and agree that such extraordinary measures are not necessary to preserve all life.
The question of which lives in this universe is a matter of opinion and many individuals have their own perceptions. However, with the Earth being dominated by humans, it is important that our species is prioritized over other life; it is essential that human interest are meticulously perceived before those of the plant and animal species. This prioritization includes the frugal minds of the society and adroit choices in regards of time expenditure. Will spending an allocating an abundant amount of money be a clever decision? For instance, if a budget consists of $40,000 and $5,000 of that is extemporaneously allocated to the preservation of the flora and fauna, that is $5,000 less that could have been contributed to the development of educational reading amongst the penure children of the United States of America. The proposal that includes substantial costs of saving plants and animals should be a secondary plan.
Also, trying to save every plant and animal to a high extent also insinuates foregoing the consumption of meat. Every meat product consists of the killing of animals, therefore performing the opposite activity that those who are advocating saving as much animals suggest. If the proposal of trying to save every plant and animal is executed, then the meat industry would also be severely affected. This is a great cost to not only the businesses but also the consumers who rely on meat for their daily activities. Economically and individually speaking, abandoning the consumption of meat is not realistic, therefore this proposal is flawed.
Finally, according to the Nature's Column, the current balance of the world associated with preys and predators, animals and plants, and finally humans are at par. Saving every plant and animal possible would burgeon the life on earth. To try to save the maximum number of plants and animals would be to disrupt the balance of the universe.
Although the thought and suggestion to save plants and animals may seem morally superior as it advocates the preservation of life, it would be unreasonable in most cases and would also disrupt the current balance on earth.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 179, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...nimals. Without animals, a wildlife can be wanting. The author states that some people bel...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 423, Rule ID: IN_REGARD_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'regarding' or 'with regard to'.
Suggestion: regarding; with regard to
...minds of the society and adroit choices in regards of time expenditure. Will spending an allo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 580, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...tance, if a budget consists of 0,000 and ,000 of that is extemporaneously allocate...
^^
Line 5, column 675, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ervation of the flora and fauna, that is ,000 less that could have been contribute...
^^
Line 9, column 251, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...that those who are advocating saving as much animals suggest. If the proposal of try...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, may, second, so, then, therefore, while, for instance, such as, in most cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.5258426966 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2361.0 2235.4752809 106% => OK
No of words: 464.0 442.535393258 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08836206897 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64119157421 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76178428513 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 215.323595506 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493534482759 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 756.9 704.065955056 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.8725782273 60.3974514979 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.428571429 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0952380952 23.4991977007 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.2380952381 5.21951772744 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => 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: 0.257595411088 0.243740707755 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0737861405417 0.0831039109588 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0711734984867 0.0758088955206 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131254330658 0.150359130593 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0506112414539 0.0667264976115 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.1392134831 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 100.480337079 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.