Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, and the protection is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Protecting the wildlife, especially wild animals by utilising the astronomical proportion of funds is considered to be squander of resources in the present times. I firmly disagree with this viewpoint because these living creatures play an immense role in the ecosystem and scientific research.
It is easy to comprehend why I am in disagreement with this assertion. The preponderant factor is that faunas are regarded as one of the valuable assets in the smooth functioning of the ecosystem. If these are not safeguarded, the food chain will get disturbed; resultantly, the ecological imbalance will impose several threats on the human beings. For example, when there is no cat, then the population of species which follow them in food chain such as rats will get exponentially exploded which in turn jeopardise the individuals’ health as these can cause fatal diseases like rabies and are also harmful for the agricultural production. The secondary reason is that these creatures are used for doing experimentation in order to invent some medication to cure deadly ailments such as cancer, but without these species its not possible to advance the medical field. Thus, I acknowledge that living species, other than humans, should be shielded as these are boon for ecological system and medical scrutiny.
Despite these advantages of saving wildlife, there are some people who believe that it is just wastage of funds. This is simply because they believe that there are copious of other pressing issues like poverty, universal education, health care facilities and employment which need immediate allotment of public budget. Why funds should be allotted on conserving animals when people are deprived of basic amenities? Therefore, these masses find the investment of resources as an injudicious decision.
Conclusively, although there are multifarious other concerns in the world which need to be resolved on priority basis, I firmly believe that protection of wild animals is not a wastage of resources.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, second, so, then, therefore, thus, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 13.1623246493 160% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1705.0 1615.20841683 106% => OK
No of words: 316.0 315.596192385 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.39556962025 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98550918634 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 176.041082164 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.582278481013 0.561755894193 104% => OK
syllable_count: 543.6 506.74238477 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.3108289903 49.4020404114 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.153846154 106.682146367 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3076923077 20.7667163134 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.38461538462 7.06120827912 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => 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: 0.0793500533276 0.244688304435 32% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.027252140717 0.084324248473 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0418422794544 0.0667982634062 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0668963036022 0.151304729494 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0500194818835 0.056905535591 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 13.0946893788 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 50.2224549098 77% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.34 12.4159519038 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.82 8.58950901804 114% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 78.4519038076 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.