Although the sale of rhinoceros horns is illegal worldwide, rhinoceroses (Rhinos) are commonly poached (hunted illegally) for their horns, which can be sold for tens of thousands of dollars per kilogram. Rhino horns are so valuable that one type of rhino is already extinct because poachers killed too many of them. All rhinos may soon become extinct unless something is done to help save them. Several ideas have been suggested
The first idea is for wildlife experts to "dehorn" Rhinos living in the wild. Dehorning means removing the horns of living rhinos to make them less attractive to poachers Horns can be removed without hurting the animals if medical equipment and drugs to calm the animals are used When this strategy was tried on a small scale in the early 1990s; none of the rhinos dehorned at the time were killed by poachers.
The second possibility is to educate consumers. The majority of rhino horn sold is used in medicines Although rhino horn is believed to have health benefits, this belief has no scientific foundation Rhino horn consists almost entirely of keratin, the same material found in human hair and nails. Keratin has no known health value. Educating consumers about keratin could greatly decrease the demand for rhino horn
The third possibility is to legalize government sales of rhino horn. Some governments have large amounts of horn, taken from poachers they have arrested This horn is often kept in storage. However, if government sales were legal, large quantities of horn that governments already have could be sold at very low prices Poachers kill rhinos because consumers pay high prices for their horns If governments started selling cheap rhino horn, rhino poaching would no longer be profitable and would probably stop, at least for a while. That might help endangered rhino populations to recover.
The reading passage explores the issue of the market of rhinoceros horns. The professor's speech deals with the same idea. However, she thinks that some suggestions which are considered to be helpful cannot bear closer analysis. And in the lecture, she uses three specific points to support her idea.
First, even though the reading suggests that "dehorning" Rhinos leads to fewer poachers, the professor argues in the lecture that the lack of practical experience definitely takes the cons of this situation. To be more specific, it is their horns that enable rhinos to live in the wild. They use their horns to dig for water and so on. Obviously, the professor's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.
Moreover, the professor asserts that old and robust belief makes education impossible, whereas the reading claims that consumers can be taught not to condone their horns. Then she supports this point with the fact that human beings have kept the culture for thousands of years. In other words, we have no idea about turning their mindset.
Finally, contrary to the reading's statement about the legalization of government sales, the professor contends that it will contribute to a lucrative market instead. The professor proves this statement is indefensible by pointing out that it will attract poachers because of the enormous profit-i.e., the increase can bring a dramatically growing horns market.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 79, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
... of the market of rhinoceros horns. The professors speech deals with the same idea. Howeve...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 361, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...dig for water and so on. Obviously, the professors argument disproves its counterpart in t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 26, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'readings'' or 'reading's'?
Suggestion: readings'; reading's
...heir mindset. Finally, contrary to the readings statement about the legalization of gov...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, so, then, whereas, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1202.0 1373.03311258 88% => OK
No of words: 227.0 270.72406181 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.29515418502 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.88156143495 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84133114668 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.63436123348 0.540411800872 117% => OK
syllable_count: 356.4 419.366225166 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 55.8316361719 49.2860985944 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.4615384615 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4615384615 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.92307692308 7.06452816374 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.175305822196 0.272083759551 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0611970125742 0.0996497079465 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0751817699444 0.0662205650399 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0962536365988 0.162205337803 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0696285826914 0.0443174109184 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.16 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.49 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.