Agree/disagree
It is important for governments to protect wild animals and wilderness areas for the future generation.
Every government plays critical roles in inhabitants’ life, in general. There are a wide array of subjects about which government has to decide; thereby, each decision affect not only current individuals, but future generation. In this respect, some contentions might arise as to whether government should decide in order to protect wide animals and wilderness areas for the future generation. Some people persist in that government should consider a today’s dilemma as a main priority instead of protecting wildlife, others believe that it is important for governments to preserve wild animals and wilderness areas for the future inhabitants, though. Presenting two notable reasons, I thoroughly concur with the latter group. In what follows, I will shed light on my notion.
The first reason comes to my mind is that protecting wildlife leads to economic growth every time. Each region has wild animals and wilderness areas that are unique and different from others; moreover, wildlife is considered a precious asset for all generation. In this regard, tourists travel throughout the world in order to see such places. Since tourists bring money with themselves and spend it to visit wilderness areas, government can generate income. Therefore, wildlife is considered as a profitable source for not only today’s people, but future generation. By investing the budget into various portion of society, the economic growth will be increased. According to a study conducted in Norway University, which I read last week, approximately forty percent of economic growth rate is related to the income having been made by tourists. Therefore, every government should attempt to protect their wildlife for the future generation in order to improve the economic growth for today and aftertime.
Another equally important reason worth mentioning is that as each part of environment is relevant to each other, governments have to protect wildlife. It is crystal clear that species can only survive by interacting with each other. According to the aforementioned statement, should government protect wildlife, it preserve people life as well. For illustration, consider a piece of ecosystem as an example. A small species of aunts need trees in order to feed from nutrition of trees. Moreover, the aunts transport seeds of trees in other areas and help trees to build new population. Had government done logging and destroyed trees, the aunt species would have not survived. Furthermore, cutting trees gives rise to increasing pollution that impact on throughout species. Hence, government should support wild animals and wilderness areas in order to guarantee the current and future generations.
To encapsulate, having analyzed two preceding reasons and examples, one comes to conclusion that it is essential for governments to preserve wild animals and wilderness areas for future inhabitants because it brings about not only increasing economic growth rate, but preserving people generation as well.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 90, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'arrays'?
Suggestion: arrays
...nts’ life, in general. There are a wide array of subjects about which government has ...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 275, Rule ID: WHETHER[6]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "as to"?
Suggestion: whether
...s respect, some contentions might arise as to whether government should decide in order to pr...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 316, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'preserves'?
Suggestion: preserves
... should government protect wildlife, it preserve people life as well. For illustration, ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, hence, if, moreover, so, therefore, well, as for, as to, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 15.1003584229 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 9.8082437276 122% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 13.8261648746 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 43.0788530466 53% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 52.1666666667 115% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 8.0752688172 272% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2541.0 1977.66487455 128% => OK
No of words: 462.0 407.700716846 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.5 4.8611393121 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63618218583 4.48103885553 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88876067731 2.67179642975 108% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 212.727598566 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508658008658 0.524837075471 97% => OK
syllable_count: 788.4 618.680645161 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.94265232975 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6003584229 117% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.7313284401 48.9658058833 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.875 100.406767564 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.25 20.6045352989 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.83333333333 5.45110844103 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 11.8709677419 118% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.88709677419 143% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.435079109672 0.236089414692 184% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11210048287 0.076458572812 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.129794202348 0.0737576698707 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.299093505082 0.150856017488 198% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0686239228172 0.0645574589148 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 11.7677419355 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 58.1214874552 75% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.1575268817 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 10.9000537634 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.01818996416 109% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 86.8835125448 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.002688172 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.