Although we are upgrading our lives in swift to achieve safety and luxury, these enhancements have some side effects, resulting in aftereffects on mother earth with global warming, disturbance in natural habitat leading to the extinction of some species. In order to maintain the balance, governments are taking steps to protect the environment by spending an incredible amount of money, whereas many argue it as a pointless expenditure on wildlife. Personally, I concur with the government in the preservation of wildlife. In this essay, I will provide my reasons those are reinforcing my views.
First of all, several people argue that the expenditure towards conservation of the wild is absurd, as the earth can take its own measures to protect itself like it did in the past. To support it, they hypothesize fossil evidence of dinosaurs which did not harm other species but merely triggered the emergence of other mammals. But to achieve it, the earth has undergone unpredictable changes. Similarly, if we do not consider taking necessary precautions now, we need to encounter egregious effects in the future.
Additionally, there were arguments that say the finances were being wasted on flora and fauna, can be diverted to other significant problems like medical research, illiteracy and so on. How could such advancements stop the natural calamities? Even though we are technically advanced, we need to depend on the natural food cycle the most. If this cycle gets disturbed, then whatever we work on cannot be a solution. For instance, considering the extinction of beetles in Japan made the farming practices extremely miserable now. Thus, the country is depending on others through imports.
Taking everything into consideration, I pen down to say that, the government needs to take preventive actions and invest in wildlife protection apart from running campaigns to raise public awareness. Alternatively, they need to take forceful measures to impose strict punishments on the activities that may harm animals and nature.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 547, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...remely miserable now. Thus, the country is depending on others through imports. Taking ev...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, may, similarly, so, then, thus, whereas, apart from, for instance, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 24.0651302605 116% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 41.998997996 124% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1723.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 322.0 315.596192385 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35093167702 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23607819155 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.996147688 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 176.041082164 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.649068322981 0.561755894193 116% => OK
syllable_count: 546.3 506.74238477 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.2299214397 49.4020404114 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.6875 106.682146367 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.125 20.7667163134 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.9375 7.06120827912 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.108506954953 0.244688304435 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.032445037927 0.084324248473 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0432570850397 0.0667982634062 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0591087531352 0.151304729494 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0279353415304 0.056905535591 49% => 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: 13.8 13.0946893788 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 50.2224549098 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.4159519038 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.78 8.58950901804 114% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 78.4519038076 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.