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.
Over the past decade, environment has been going through hardships due to aberrations in climate. Moreover, this fluctuation brings along severe consequences with itself and lots of plants and animal species are endangered. There’s this ongoing debate about whether or not societies should to their best to save them without considering its cost. Even though the argument is tough as it stands due to the fact that there are valid argument for both sides, I strongly agree that countries and as well as people inside should save the animal species and planet no matter what the expense is.
First, environment is complete with its actors. Saying that, people are not the only actors who involves in planet. There is a huge, complex system that balance the world we live. Considering the severe incidents human made on environment, it would be inexorable to say that we have been a strong reason for the alteration in this balanced state. For instance, penguins are facing huge threats. Out of 18 species of penguins alive today, 11 are listed as threatened officially. Even though some people think that, penguins could have less impact on our lives; like every single animal it has its significance. Penguins serve as food for predators such as leopard seals and seabird in cold areas and they carry nutrients between land and sea by enriching both faces. That’s why, countries should emphasize this subject and at what expense they should allocate their fundings and time in order to save the planet.
Next, what gives us the responsibility of threatening other plants or living animals? Is it because we have a mind to think and power to coerce? Unfortunately, this kind of attitude is sick and it has lots of fallacies. Because, they are just like us! As a mentally-healthy human, would you consider to threaten your own generation? Because, whatever the hazardous action you’ll be involving to environment, it will be treacherous for your son, grandson and etc. So that’s why, we should not see animals or plants like they are inferior. They are just like us, and we should equally treat to anything around us which has a life cycle.
On the other hand, one might claim that some countries do not have adequate resource to protect the plants or animal that are jeopardized. But, this would not justify that we should just leave them alone. International organizations such as World Wildlife Fund stand for this. A collective action of both developing and developed countries would ensure a prospering future for our environment. Moreover, joint action is needed because each point of world could affect one another.
To sum up, I strongly agree that plants and human species should be protected for ourselves and for the whole planet due to the fact that the world is something exhaustive for every living human, animals or planet without discrimination.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 264, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
... There's this ongoing debate about whether or not societies should to their best to save ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 292, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[3]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'consider threatening'.
Suggestion: consider threatening
... As a mentally-healthy human, would you consider to threaten your own generation? Because, whatever ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 385, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...atever the hazardous action you'll be involving to environment, it will be treacherous ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 460, Rule ID: AND_ETC[1]
Message: Use simply 'etc.'.
Suggestion: etc.
...l be treacherous for your son, grandson and etc. So that's why, we should not see a...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, moreover, so, well, for instance, kind of, such as, as well as, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 57.0 33.0505617978 172% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2416.0 2235.4752809 108% => OK
No of words: 478.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05439330544 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73359163741 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.52510460251 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 734.4 704.065955056 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.1988943512 60.3974514979 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.9230769231 118.986275619 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3846153846 23.4991977007 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.15384615385 5.21951772744 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => 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: 0.153458801156 0.243740707755 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0384111842858 0.0831039109588 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0438412517412 0.0758088955206 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0901496087035 0.150359130593 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0285966409724 0.0667264976115 43% => 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: 11.5 14.1392134831 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.8420337079 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.1743820225 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.1639044944 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 100.480337079 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.