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.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Following recent discussions about the importance of saving endangered animals or plants compared to constructions of infrastructural importance quickly leads to the question of whether it is justified to spend a great amount of money and labour to save those species. With some small qualifications, the claim that there is little justification for that waste of resources can easily be buttressed for two reasons.
First, there is no direct positive effect of spending large sums of money for saving endangered animals to society. For instance, if there is no large excess of money in government financial plans, the sums spent to help species facing extirpation survive will consequentially lack for other projects of far greater importance. Wouldn’t most citizens first be better off with an affordable governmentally funded healthcare system than with a rare species of ants saved from no longer existing? There is no justification for a society to set the welfare of animals or plants in front of the wellbeing of parts of society that have to stint on a monthly budget every payday. Society is to be considered healthier if most members of it are taken care of adequately and not whether it has two or three different types of ants.
Second, however, this means not that efforts to save endangered animals should fully be neglected. For instance, German law requires managers of construction sites to set a certain low percentage of the building budget aside for taking nature-friendly measures. That way, it is secured that just a low amount of money or labour is spent on saving endangered species that would face extinction as an immediate result of losing their natural habitat to the construction site. Additionally, this law ensures that the people responsible for destroying parts of communal spaces and nature are the ones responsible. By doing so, the financial burden is shifted away from the taxpayer.
Moreover, it is often stated that people who as a whole make up society live happier if their surrounding nature remains intact and mostly undisturbed. However, this argumentation falls apart, as making cuts on saving measures for endangered species does not mean that it is now allowed to destroy nature all along. Therefore, there is no reason for societies to spend exorbitant sums on saving endangered species.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 163, Rule ID: WHETHER[3]
Message: Wordiness: Shorten this phrase to the shortest possible suggestion.
Suggestion: whether; the question whether
...astructural importance quickly leads to the question of whether it is justified to spend a great amount...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, therefore, well, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1964.0 2235.4752809 88% => OK
No of words: 379.0 442.535393258 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.18205804749 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98332306531 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 215.323595506 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554089709763 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 615.6 704.065955056 87% => 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: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.0070289743 60.3974514979 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.933333333 118.986275619 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2666666667 23.4991977007 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.06666666667 5.21951772744 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
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: 0.247425969028 0.243740707755 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0830304968404 0.0831039109588 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.043486270829 0.0758088955206 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154745175106 0.150359130593 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0293928201383 0.0667264976115 44% => 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: 15.6 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.06 12.1639044944 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.13 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 100.480337079 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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: 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.