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
The statement claims that the endangered species are not worthwhile to be saved especially when it comes with great costs to our society. For most of the case, I think such claim is justifiable, and there might be only a few exceptions to the claim for the following reasons.
First of all, I agree with the statement under the assumption that if there is no clear evidence that can prove a positive result, such as a revitalization of the overall population, aimless expenditure is purely waste of precious human, time and mone resourced from the society. Consider a species of bird that lived deep in the jungle, so deep that nearly no man has ever encountered them, let alone their preferred living conditions and habitats. So, in order to come up with a detailed plan, hundreds of scientists all around the world devote years of time and millions of dollars in money while still achieve no meaningful progress in saving that species. Those time and money, nevertheless, could be used to save those species that are better studied and documented, and yield a more efficient use of those resources that might otherwise be wasted. Therefore, from the standpoint of using resources efficiently, we should avoid spending a huge amount of our precious on s saving project that might lead to a dead end.
Furthermore, even assume that there could yield a positive result for those specific species themselves at efficient use of our resources, we must confirm that those species are still, indeed, competitive in their loving condition, and their endangered condition is caused by human activities. For the most of the time, the extinction and the endangered condition is a result of natural selection, and to let the trend move forward, we must respect of the process of natural selection instead of interfering it often. Just like the bird example mentioned in the last paragraph; perhaps its endangered condition appeared because of a more competitive species of bird have evolved and have developed better ability at foraging foods that both species depend on. Just by claiming that a species is endangered does not mean that their conditions are all caused by human activity and its our responsibility to save them.
For those who disagree with the statement, they may argue that since mankind is the most powerful species on earth, we have the responsibility to save the planet But for most of those advocates, the intentionally or unintentionally assumed that the benefit for saving those species would overshadow the costs that we might take, and its endangeredness is caused by human society. Just like bees, which are crucial in producing honey and spreading pollen. In this case, it is worth our time and other resources since the value of saving such species has greatly overshadows the costs, even at loss of jobs and money, and they are reduced in numbers are a clear result of the golbal warming that threatened their habitats. Overall, there are only few species that are justified for us to spend huge amount of our resurces on because they satisfied both assumptions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 881, Rule ID: IT_IS[17]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...ns are all caused by human activity and its our responsibility to save them. For...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, therefore, while, i think, such as, first of all
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 : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 11.3162921348 194% => OK
Pronoun: 59.0 33.0505617978 179% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2572.0 2235.4752809 115% => OK
No of words: 517.0 442.535393258 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9748549323 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.76839952204 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76656740782 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 215.323595506 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.483558994197 0.4932671777 98% => OK
syllable_count: 810.0 704.065955056 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => 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: 34.0 23.0359550562 148% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 75.0205897663 60.3974514979 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 171.466666667 118.986275619 144% => OK
Words per sentence: 34.4666666667 23.4991977007 147% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.13333333333 5.21951772744 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.212537258459 0.243740707755 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0758043061367 0.0831039109588 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0586813385089 0.0758088955206 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144427257635 0.150359130593 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0478913587284 0.0667264976115 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.2 14.1392134831 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.97 48.8420337079 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.6 12.1743820225 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.14 12.1639044944 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 100.480337079 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.6 11.2143820225 139% => 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: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.