There is little justification for society to make extraordinary efforts—especially at a great cost in money and jobs—to save endangered animal or plant species.
Both Flora and fauna play major roles in societies’ health and business. Although believing that there is paltry justification for society to make comprehensive efforts to save endangered animal or plant species, many people disagree with this statement because keeping endangered species, plants or animals, play a fundamental role in growing businesses and ecological materials.
First and foremost, it has been elucidated by variegated documents that endangered species’ protection or nurture could bolster societies’ business or financial materials. Many countries in the world are dependent on the tourism industry. For instance, in South Africa, protected flora and fauna have been playing major roles in booming local businesses by attracting tourists. From around the world, many people coming to this country to see unique animals which are deemed as extinct in other places. Not only can it improve local businesses such as hotels, public transportation, and so forth, but also it could provide a great number of profits for the government. Thus, keeping endangered species could provide this opportunity for various governments to augment their profits derived from the related industries.
Secondly, by and large, keeping endangered species from extinction not only could help scientists to keep ecological issues in balance but also halters unwarranted effects related to the convoluted ecological networks. For example, according to historical documents, after the population of Tasmanian tigers in Indonesia dropped, the number of Mice increasingly escalated and as a consequence, crop production decreased. In those years, Indonesia’s government declared that crop exports took a nosedive. Therefore, based on the example, it seems fair to suggest that the protection of endangered animals or plants have a great impression on ecological cycles.
On the other hand, despite the fact that protection of endangered species is an appropriate principal that governments should do germane to business, applying extraordinary efforts, particularly at a great money or cost, in health and educational fields, apparently is advantageous because a large number of people could use the achievements in their daily lives. Thus, costing vast money on protecting endangered species seems unwarranted and inappropriate.
In the final analysis, while many people think that there is a negligible justification for various societies to make extraordinary efforts to keep endangered animal or plant species, others repudiate this idea because not only can protection of endangered species help governments to improve their businesses, but also it may help them to keep the ecological interactions in a standstill condition; However, governments should pay attention to education and health fields as equal as efforts to protect endangered species.
Time 30 min
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 498, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ernment declared that crop exports took a nosedive. Therefore, based on the example, it se...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 291, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...lds, apparently is advantageous because a large number of people could use the achievements in th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 12, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tect endangered species. Time 30 min
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, thus, while, for example, for instance, such as, by and large, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.5258426966 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 58.6224719101 96% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2621.0 2235.4752809 117% => OK
No of words: 449.0 442.535393258 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.83741648107 5.05705443957 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60321845022 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.25848966122 2.79657885939 117% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 215.323595506 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507795100223 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 812.7 704.065955056 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
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: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 119.865235746 60.3974514979 198% => OK
Chars per sentence: 154.176470588 118.986275619 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4117647059 23.4991977007 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.88235294118 5.21951772744 189% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.279479110804 0.243740707755 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0941860426227 0.0831039109588 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.143541471659 0.0758088955206 189% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.209912653256 0.150359130593 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.184419814916 0.0667264976115 276% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.3 14.1392134831 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 28.17 48.8420337079 58% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.1743820225 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.89 12.1639044944 139% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.46 8.38706741573 113% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 100.480337079 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 11.8971910112 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.7820224719 144% => 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.