Society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction of those species is the result of human activities.
Many would say that society should make efforts as much as possible to save all endangered species. They insist that saving species in danger is an indispensable accountability of mankind. Also, it is true that harms in other species directly and indirectly affect humen, so the argument is understandable considering importance of saving ecosystems. However, I still disagree with this viewpoint.
First and foremost, saving all species from extinction is not plausible because of limited resources. One may asserts that we probably will cost in one day if any action is not taken for the vanished species. Even though the assertion might true, we have no choice but to take that risks because we are hardly able to afford to take the actions within limited government budgets and lacking human resources. To be specific, before taking any action, we have to determine whether the species is really in danger and find out the exact reasons of the extinction, which needs highly paid expertises. Imagine we decide to save certain species. Any treatment to save the species whose habitat is a jungle middle in Africa will ensue enormous time and budget, consequently, we cannot focus on more impending problems of ourselves, such as ensuring health or safety of the citizens and maintaining well-being of the whole nation.
Moreover, saving only species which are jeopardized due to human is more desirable in that it is beneficial for the nature to minimize human intervention. To be more specific, there is natural food-web in the ecosystem which means certain species has relationships with many others. We cannot perfectly predict what will happen after we alter the law of jungle, so any little alteration for saving one species might cause the annihilation of other many species. Of course, we have to call for species whose danger is our fault, which is stemmed from the same principle: minimize the human intervention. Therefore, saving only species whose anticipating disappearance is fault of human will be the most moderate and reasonable action.
In conclusion, I firmly think the argument stating human have to save all endangered species is problematic in that it is neither plausible nor salutary. In this regard, the given statement that we should take actions only when the potential extinction of species is responsible for us.
- All college students should take a public speaking course that teaches how to speak well in front of many people before graduation. 71
- Although innovations such as video, computers, and the internet seem to offer schools improved methods for instructing students, these technologies all too often distract from real learning. 66
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “Video games offer benefits to children.” Provide reason and examples to support your stance. 76
- Young people should be encouraged to pursue long-term, realistic goals rather than seek immediate fame and recognition. 70
- To understand the most important characteristics of a society, one must study its major cities. 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
...I still disagree with this viewpoint. First and foremost, saving all species f...
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
...ning well-being of the whole nation. Moreover, saving only species which are ...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, however, if, may, moreover, really, so, still, therefore, well, in conclusion, of course, such as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 15.1003584229 146% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 9.8082437276 122% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.0286738351 145% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 43.0788530466 67% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 52.1666666667 86% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.0752688172 186% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1970.0 1977.66487455 100% => OK
No of words: 381.0 407.700716846 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17060367454 4.8611393121 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.48103885553 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83295614081 2.67179642975 106% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 212.727598566 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538057742782 0.524837075471 103% => OK
syllable_count: 629.1 618.680645161 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 9.59856630824 94% => OK
Article: 1.0 3.08781362007 32% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.6003584229 83% => 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: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.2238482076 48.9658058833 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.882352941 100.406767564 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4117647059 20.6045352989 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.29411764706 5.45110844103 152% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 11.8709677419 51% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 3.85842293907 259% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88709677419 20% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.322210448204 0.236089414692 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.113886425337 0.076458572812 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0790447429934 0.0737576698707 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.226168724178 0.150856017488 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0726072344516 0.0645574589148 112% => OK
automated_readability_index: 14.1 11.7677419355 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 58.1214874552 70% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.1575268817 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 10.9000537634 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.01818996416 112% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 86.8835125448 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.002688172 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => 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: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.