Wild animals have contributed to both providing the nutritional sustenance to invigorate both human mental and physical states and supporting experiments to help people find new treatments to cure diseases. People inclined to think that governments should expend money on protecting the survival of wild animals, in opposition, argued that the idea of the government fund for them is unnecessary. Personally, I believe that people should maintain a balance between the amount of money allocated for humans and other species.
On the one hand, city planners should spend money and endeavours on the welfare of the populace. The main reason for this view is that there are still manifold afflictions which need to be ameliorated in the society nowadays. For example, some developing countries are facing the starvation and poverty that lead to the demise of the children and the elderly as well as inherent terrorists threaten to emancipation and peace of those individuals. Because of this, the expenditure on state subsidies is more likely to encourage people to overcome difficult situations and improve their livelihoods rather than on preserving wild animals. Another reason for this opinion is that many insects have detrimental impacts on the quality and quantity of agricultural alimentary products. Therefore, expending money to protect wild animals is partially unnecessary.
On the other hand, wild animals also help people in many aspects. First, the protection of those species will benefit people in the medical field. To be specific, according to researching and undergoing the experiments on the part of rats, people could find new vaccines or drugs to resist diseases and cure many patients. Secondly, the protection of wild animals which ensures the natural balance of all life on Earth. If animals vanished completely, this would render the natural habitats influenced significantly such the disappearance of forests, infertility of soil and indigent conditions of marine life. Due to this, the survival of people is prone to become imperilled enormously. Finally, the expenditure on resolving the consequences when these animals die out would far outweigh the costs of preservation. Therefore, it is crucial for people to protect the survival of wild animals.
In conclusion, it seems to me that people should contemplate carefully the quantity of money invested for humans and wild animals.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, well, for example, in conclusion, as well as, on the other hand
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 : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 41.998997996 129% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2038.0 1615.20841683 126% => OK
No of words: 375.0 315.596192385 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.43466666667 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40055868397 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95714697339 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544 0.561755894193 97% => OK
syllable_count: 648.9 506.74238477 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.5387677095 49.4020404114 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.222222222 106.682146367 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8333333333 20.7667163134 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.44444444444 7.06120827912 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.191627027396 0.244688304435 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0612102079666 0.084324248473 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0406346751928 0.0667982634062 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119457583677 0.151304729494 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0286468038941 0.056905535591 50% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.0946893788 111% => 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: 14.21 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.43 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 78.4519038076 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.