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 a pure waste of precious human, time and more resources 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, 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 living 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 it's our responsibility to save them.
For those who disagree with the statement, they may argue that since people are the most powerful species on earth, we have the responsibility of saving the planet. But for most of those advocates, the intentionally or unintentionally assumed that the benefit of 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 have greatly overshadowed the costs, even at loss of jobs and money, and their reduction in numbers is a clear result of the global warming that threatened their habitats. Overall, there are only a few species that are justified for us to spend a huge amount of our resources on because they satisfied both assumptions.
In short, the issue of saving endangered species is a complex one. The effort that we need to make to save those endangered species must be considered differently depends on the situations. When considering the tradeoff between and the natural process of evolution, I agree with the statement that it is not worthwhile for us to spend a huge amount of resource to save those species.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1004, Rule ID: DT_JJ_NO_NOUN[1]
Message: Probably a noun is missing in this part of the sentence.
... on s saving project that might lead to a dead-end. Furthermore, even assume that there...
^^^^^^^^^^
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, in short, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 11.3162921348 221% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 67.0 33.0505617978 203% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 79.0 58.6224719101 135% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2892.0 2235.4752809 129% => OK
No of words: 582.0 442.535393258 132% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96907216495 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.91168771031 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80416161284 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 260.0 215.323595506 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.446735395189 0.4932671777 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 911.7 704.065955056 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 23.0359550562 130% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 61.1043791586 60.3974514979 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 152.210526316 118.986275619 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.6315789474 23.4991977007 130% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.15789473684 5.21951772744 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.234771937867 0.243740707755 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0837867381593 0.0831039109588 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0592876285898 0.0758088955206 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.152061566198 0.150359130593 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0457555945412 0.0667264976115 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 14.1392134831 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 48.8420337079 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.14 12.1639044944 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 100.480337079 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.2143820225 125% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.