Some people think that a huge amount of time and money is spent on the protection of wild animals and that this money could be better spent on the human population. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Preserving wild animals is constantly receiving more public concern, time, and effort in the present-day world. Reacting to this fact, while many people show their agreement, the opponents argue that this money should be spent on the human population.
On the one hand, people suppose that if human beings do not protect wild animals, many of them will come to extinction, which indirectly affects other species since many species live on each other and cooperate to find food. Hence, if one disappears, others will face up to many survival problems. Besides, the food chain and the habitat are also negatively damaged due to many changes in the number of species. These altogether will affect the biodiversity of nature. Moreover, the exploitation of wild animals also causes many harmful effects to the environment, for instance, deforestation. In this case, the loss of a tremendous number of trees will lead to global warming and other natural disasters, which directly affect human life.
On the other hand, tons of people believe that this money and efforts would rather invest in the human population like improving the living standards or innovating education. Firstly, when better education methods are implemented, it can reach more people of different ages and enhance their interest in learning. As a result, both the public awareness about protecting animals and the public intellectual level are increasing considerably through education. Therefore, preserving wild fauna and dealing with many social problems like unemployment can be solved at the same time, which is much more efficient. Furthermore, the living standards can also improve significantly, which makes people’s life much easier, so they can devote more time to concern about protecting the environment, or in other words, conserving wild animals.
In conclusion, while the two solutions all have their strengths, I am partially in favour of investing in improving the human population, which can solve more problems simultaneously.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 413, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this altogether' or ''?
Suggestion: This altogether;
... many changes in the number of species. These altogether will affect the biodiversity of nature....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 327, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...their interest in learning. As a result, both the public awareness about protecti...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, moreover, so, therefore, while, for instance, in conclusion, as a result, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 41.998997996 93% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1709.0 1615.20841683 106% => OK
No of words: 314.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44267515924 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87180104941 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 176.041082164 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.592356687898 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 528.3 506.74238477 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.8087729436 49.4020404114 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.071428571 106.682146367 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4285714286 20.7667163134 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.5714285714 7.06120827912 164% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216085435891 0.244688304435 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0705692269382 0.084324248473 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0706899782726 0.0667982634062 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135758811148 0.151304729494 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0941662599987 0.056905535591 165% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 13.0946893788 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.57 12.4159519038 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.35 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 78.4519038076 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.