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.
Protecting the environment is consequential for humans to maintain their welfare. Our food supplies are cultivated from it and our health and emotional state is conducive to the environment. I believe the society should be vehement in saving the plants and animal species, but should not spend all the expense only on protecting the environment when there are much more exigent problems that need to be resolved.
First of all, some people such as environmentalists assert that protecting the environment's well-being eventually guarantees overall humans' welfare. However, I would have to tackle the found of such claim. Saving the environment causes extensive amount of money and effort. For example, the society would have to financially support the scientists in developing alternative energy sources such as solar energy to replace the current energy sources and advertise policies that forces humans to not produce anymore trash that are lethal to the environment. What if the government runs out of money in the process? Then they would have to increase the tax revenue which makes it compulsory for humans to work more arduously. It would distress the humans with all the pressure of having to work and be discerned about not creating trashes that are environmentally unfriendly. Impecunious people who can't afford the high tax prices would suffer from hunger and diseases that can't be cured because the price of medical treatments would be unavailable for them. Because the society's whole concern is saving other species, the humans who need support would not receive enough support, which puts them in stark position.
On the other hand, some people would oppose that the society should make extraordinary effects on saving the environment, and my belief aligns with their claim. However, there is one point that needs to be altered in order for them to fully maintain their claim. While I do agree that the society should not spend extensive expense on saving the environment, I think it is essential to spend grand money on jobs that saves the environment. Saving endangered species requires assail effort. For example, when pandas were faced with the danger of being extinguished, scientists and environmentalists had to search a way in order to provide pandas the apposite environment for them to survive and continuously reproduce. Because pandas are known to be very sensitive and are vulnerable to little change in the environment, people who worked for preserving the pandas had to thoroughly investigate and conduct research that took almost five years. Eventually, they were able to preserve the number of pandas. If the society had not spent enough money on supporting the jobs that protect the environment, an animal species would have met extermination.
To sum up, protecting the animals and plants species is crucial and the society should spend enough money on jobs that preserves their well-being. However, spending efforts only on preserving the environment could lead to lack of support on humans which could be lethal to them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 895, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ally unfriendly. Impecunious people who cant afford the high tax prices would suffer...
^^^^
Line 2, column 970, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ld suffer from hunger and diseases that cant be cured because the price of medical t...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, so, then, well, while, for example, i think, such as, first of all, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 11.3162921348 186% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 58.6224719101 96% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2567.0 2235.4752809 115% => OK
No of words: 491.0 442.535393258 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22810590631 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70728369723 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83242646749 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.462321792261 0.4932671777 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 789.3 704.065955056 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.4981322035 60.3974514979 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.681818182 118.986275619 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3181818182 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.21951772744 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.288984396335 0.243740707755 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0870143995553 0.0831039109588 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0726474573399 0.0758088955206 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.188815645468 0.150359130593 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0181528672998 0.0667264976115 27% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.1392134831 102% => 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: 13.35 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 100.480337079 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
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: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.