Human activities have negative effects on plants and animal species. Some people think that it is too late to do anything about this problem. Other people believe that effective measures can be taken to improve this situation. Discuss both views and give your opinion
Fauna and flora are being destroyed by human impacts. Some pessimists say it is irreversible to modify the situation, while the optimists believe in many effective measures that can be taken to better the ecosystem. In this essay, I will attempt to justify both viewpoints as well as provide my perspective that totally supports the latter.
On the one hand, it is undoubted that the animals and plants species are endangered because of the profound effect of human activities. That is to say, people tend to cut down a wide range of trees for agriculture, along with grazing and timber and may not perceive the permanent damage. As a consequence, a chunk of vegetation disappears and wild animals lose their homes. Hence, these animals may become endangered, or even encounter extinction.
On the other hand, it is believed that the natural habitat can be resurrected by the effort of the community. Governments are trying to come up with efficient measures that can offset the human's fallacy. Society is likely to be encouraged with afforestation, and deforestation tends to become an illegal action. For instance, there are a large number of campaigns about reforesting the land and some people, in likelihood, are arrested for their unconscious action to the environment. Since the forests are relieved, the ecosystem can be harmonised. Moreover, the fauna can be protected because they can live in the suitable environment.
All in all, humans have done permanent damage to the environment and are suffering from profound effects, but it is possible for them to modify the situation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 274, Rule ID: BOTH_AS_WELL_AS[1]
Message: Probable usage error. Use 'and' after 'both'.
Suggestion: and
...will attempt to justify both viewpoints as well as provide my perspective that totally sup...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 188, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
... efficient measures that can offset the humans fallacy. Society is likely to be encour...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 336, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...illegal action. For instance, there are a large number of campaigns about reforesting the land an...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, if, may, moreover, so, well, while, for instance, as well as, on the other hand, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 41.998997996 81% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1340.0 1615.20841683 83% => OK
No of words: 260.0 315.596192385 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15384615385 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.20363070211 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94527000199 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 176.041082164 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.607692307692 0.561755894193 108% => OK
syllable_count: 434.7 506.74238477 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.191451728 49.4020404114 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.7142857143 106.682146367 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5714285714 20.7667163134 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.64285714286 7.06120827912 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.247844382699 0.244688304435 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0729800698626 0.084324248473 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0485880148299 0.0667982634062 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125706163914 0.151304729494 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0588422221899 0.056905535591 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.0946893788 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 50.2224549098 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.4159519038 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.39 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 78.4519038076 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.