Wild animals play vital roles in providing the nutritional sustenance to invigorate both human mental and physical states and supporting experiments to help people find new treatments to cure diseases. As a result, people inclined to think that governments should expend money on protecting the survival of wild animals, in opposition, argued that this money should be used for the problems of humankind. Personally, I believe that people should maintain a balance between the amount of money allocated for humans and other species.
On the one hand, money and endeavours should be spent 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 freedom and peace of those individuals. Because of this, state subsidies should be spent on encouraging people to overcome these 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. For instance, many insects eat crops and wreak havoc on the fields on many farms that reduce the productivity of these products and affect farmers' livelihood considerably. 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 mice or rats, people could find new vaccines or drugs to resist diseases and cure many patients. Secondly, I am firmly convinced that the protection of wild animals which ensures the natural balance of all life on Earth. It is conceivable that if animals vanished completely, the natural habitats would be influenced significantly such the destruction of forests, infertility of soil and indigent conditions of marine life together with the survival of humankind could be imperilled. 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, finally, first, if, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, well, for example, for instance, in conclusion, as a result, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 10.4138276553 163% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 41.998997996 133% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2179.0 1615.20841683 135% => OK
No of words: 407.0 315.596192385 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35380835381 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49157444576 4.20363070211 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91029218507 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 176.041082164 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.53316953317 0.561755894193 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 684.9 506.74238477 135% => 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: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
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: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.2340606384 49.4020404114 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.055555556 106.682146367 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6111111111 20.7667163134 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.66666666667 7.06120827912 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.29309208095 0.244688304435 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0942804687636 0.084324248473 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0673276453457 0.0667982634062 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184186517125 0.151304729494 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0359939091472 0.056905535591 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.0946893788 115% => 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: 14.05 12.4159519038 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.58 8.58950901804 112% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 78.4519038076 159% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.