Reading
Many environmentalists support the current system of laws that works to save all species that may become extinct. They claim that the current variety of organisms that exist on Earth must be preserved. This idea has long been held as our moral and practical responsibility, but this safeguarding of endangered species is unnatural and poses many drawbacks.
First, many claim that the extinction of any animal will certainly lead to ecological disaster, but this is an exaggeration. Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that in the evolutionary history of the Earth, extinctions have occurred several times, one well-known example of this being that of the dinosaur. Once the predominant organism, it too became extinct. This sudden relative destruction of biodiversity did not result in lasting harm to life on Earth, but in a natural emergence of different species.
Also, with the advent of technologies such as genetic engineering scientists no longer depend on nature as a source of inspiration for medication. The need for the preservation of all species is often supported by the idea that each may prove to have some medicinal applications. The truth is that with genetic engineering, research scientists are more able to heal disease than they ever have been before. So, the natural lose of one species to extinction will not significantly harm the progress of medicine.
Third, the huge cost of saving a species from extinction is often not justified. For example, the California Condor depended on the mammoth as a source of food. When the mammoth became extinct, the condor was naturally next to follow. But, instead, millions were spent to restore the dwindling condor population. Money that could have been spent on more urgent needs was instead spent on saving an animal that nature could no longer support.
The articles claims that safeguarding of endangered species is unnatural and poses many drawbacks and provides three reasons of support. The professor explains that the extinction should be prevented whenever it is possible. He states that loss of any species may have negative consequences and he refutes each of author's reasons.
First, the reading avers that the extinction cannot cause ecological disaster. The professor contends that the reading states that dinosaurs' extinction had no harm but it fails to explain that the extinction caused a dramatic shift on the Earth's surface when there was no human on Earth. However, these days humans live on Earth and we are the people who wish to preserve the Earth so we must realize that each change can threat our existence.
Second, the article posits that with advent of technology, there is no need to use nature as a source of inspiration for medications. The professor refutes the statement by saying that 40% of prescribed medicines are made of natural products, considering the small amount of these natural sources being studied. He explains that 100 species are estimated to be lost which means scientists lose the opportunity to make medicine from those species, forever.
Third, the reading claims that the huge cost of saving species is not justified. The lecturer opposes this point by metioning that losing species has significant effect on the economy. He provides an example of fresh water muscle species which are in danger of distinction. He illustrates the point by saying that helping species to survive would keep the thriving industry and adds jobs to the society. He concludes that remaining species deserve to be saved if they have financial benefits.
He states that loss of any species may have negative consequences
He states that the loss of any species may have negative consequences
with advent of technology,
with the advent of technology,
Sentence: The lecturer opposes this point by metioning that losing species has significant effect on the economy.
Error: metioning Suggestion: mentioning
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 26 in 30
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 281 350
No. of Characters: 1423 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.094 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.064 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.597 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 112 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 88 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 53 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 34 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.071 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.84 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.564 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.152 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5