Some people think that human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more important than saving land for endangered animals. Do you agree or disagree with this point of view? Why or why not? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer
Some argue the societal needs such as housing, farmland and industry are far crucial than keeping lands of endemic species. I do not agree with the statement because preserving animal habitats and keeping the lands greener is important not only for animals but for humans. I will explain my reasons throughout this essay.
To begin with, as the population growth continues the need for land in order to maintain societal needs are increasing. Therefore, humans using considering to industrialise the green lands which are home for endangered animals. Humanity needs to set strict boundaries to this action because human beings have a moral purpose to maintain and preserve wildlife to the next generations. For instance, as the artics started to melt, many oil producer companies started to dig the land by threatening the polar bear's natural habitat. If this action will continue, in the near future there will be not even a polar bear alive and this pressing situation would create a huge shame for humanity.
Additionally, the negative outcomes of climate change are getting more evident day by day, the virgin lands need to stay as they are due to the need for greenery land by humans and the other alive organisms with oxygen. If this land would be destroyed by humans not only the endangered animals but also humanity will need to face with horrible outcomes. To illustrate this, take an example of temperature rise, every year the world's temperature is rising strictly as an outcome of building more industries and using more fossil fuel sources. As a result, many chronic diseases have become more common, if humanity will continue to constructing and using lands like this the whole living species will suffer.
To conclude, even though some people argue that for the purpose of farming, building housing and constructing industries, humans need to use the lands rather than saving those areas for the endangered species. This situation would also only brings negative outcomes than positives. This is because humans have a moral purpose to preserve animal species to the next generation and harming the untouched lands would add new problems to already existed climate change struggles.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 145, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[3]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'considering industrialising'.
Suggestion: considering industrialising
...are increasing. Therefore, humans using considering to industrialise the green lands which are home for enda...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 430, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun oil seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much oil', 'a good deal of oil'.
Suggestion: much oil; a good deal of oil
...nstance, as the artics started to melt, many oil producer companies started to dig the l...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 427, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'worlds'' or 'world's'?
Suggestion: worlds'; world's
...ple of temperature rise, every year the worlds temperature is rising strictly as an ou...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, so, therefore, as for, for instance, such as, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 15.1003584229 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 9.8082437276 153% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 13.8261648746 80% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 11.0286738351 18% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 43.0788530466 35% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 52.1666666667 73% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.0752688172 74% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1849.0 1977.66487455 93% => OK
No of words: 359.0 407.700716846 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1504178273 4.8611393121 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35284910392 4.48103885553 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56695476318 2.67179642975 96% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 212.727598566 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.526462395543 0.524837075471 100% => OK
syllable_count: 582.3 618.680645161 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.51792114695 199% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.6003584229 73% => 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: 23.0 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.1525971341 48.9658058833 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.266666667 100.406767564 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9333333333 20.6045352989 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.8 5.45110844103 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 11.8709677419 17% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 3.85842293907 233% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.369450633228 0.236089414692 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.129667138458 0.076458572812 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0684514851584 0.0737576698707 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.244054748638 0.150856017488 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0341751270596 0.0645574589148 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 11.7677419355 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 58.1214874552 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.1575268817 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 10.9000537634 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.01818996416 111% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 86.8835125448 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.002688172 80% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => 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.