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.
Now listen to part of a lecture on the topic you just read about.
Some things certainly must be done to save the Rhinoceros from extinction. However, the solutions proposed in the reading have significant weaknesses.
First, the idea of de-horning Rhinos is neither practical nor good for Rhinos’ survival. To de-horn Rhinos, you have to find them in the wild, prepare them for surgery, and then remove their horns. But even if we had the time and money to do all this, we would likely be reducing Rhinos’ chances for survival. Rhinos have horns for good reasons. They use them to dig for water, to break branches when looking for food, to guide and protect their young, and to protect their territory. So while de-horned Rhinos maybe unattractive to poachers, they are also really disadvantaged in the wild.
Second, educating consumers is unlikely to be effective. Many people have strong cultural beliefs about the healing powers, the health benefits, of Rhino horn. These beliefs are very ancient. They go back thousands of years. Educating consumers works best when the consumers don’t already have strong ideas about something. But when consumers have very old and very strong beliefs, new scientific evidence is unlikely to easily change their minds.
Third, the effect of government selling Rhino horn legally could actually be unpredictable. Currently, many people who want Rhino horn may not buy it because it’s illegal. But if government starts selling Rhino horn, buying Rhino horn will become acceptable. And many more people might start buying it. In other words, the demand for Rhino horn might grow dramatically, creating a much larger market for the horn. The laws of economics suggest that the larger demand would increase prices, and the high prices would in turn attract poachers, so poaching might not stop. Instead, poachers might continue killing Rhinos and sell their horn because the government sales might create a large and lucrative market.
The phenomenon of poaching rhinoceroses for their horns is becoming more and more severe. The passage proposes some ideas to solve the problem. However, the lecture argues that none of the idea is effective.
Firstly, the passage claims that the poaching can be solved by making Rhinos living in the wild "dehorned". However, the lecture disagrees with this approach and thinks that it is impractical. To remove horns of rhinos, we first need to find Rhinos living in the wild, which requires lots of soldiers. Besides, even if we have enough resources to take actions to remove the horns of rhinos, we cannot guarantee the living chance of the "dehorned" Rhinos. In the wild, horns is useful and critical for the survival of them, which play a significant role in finding water, guiding way and protecting themselves and their children. If horns are removed, they are placed at disadvantages forcedly, which might decreases their living possibility.
Secondly, the passage argues that we can reducing poaching by educating consumers, so the sales of horns will decrease and there will be less poaching. It sounds like making sense, but the lecture also disputes this opinion. What we need to know is that many culture held the belief of the healing effect about the horns since ancient. With such an old and strong concept in the people who hold such a belief, it really hard to make the scientific concept come into their minds. Therefore, this approach is also impossible.
Thirdly, the passage believes that legalizing government sales of rhino horn can reduce poaching. Although it seems to come into effect, the lecture also casts doubts on this method. Today, many people refused to buy horns because it is illegal to buy it. However, if we allow the government to sale rhino horns legally, there may be an increasing number of people to buy the horns, raising the demand of horns. With the economic laws, if the demand get higher, the price is also likely to get higher, which will in turn stimulates the increasing of poaching.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 42, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'can' requires the base form of the verb: 'reduce'
Suggestion: reduce
...econdly, the passage argues that we can reducing poaching by educating consumers, so the...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 255, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun culture seems to be countable; consider using: 'many cultures'.
Suggestion: many cultures
...s opinion. What we need to know is that many culture held the belief of the healing effect a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, really, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 44.0 30.3222958057 145% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1722.0 1373.03311258 125% => OK
No of words: 344.0 270.72406181 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00581395349 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30665032142 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73633459972 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 145.348785872 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523255813953 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 528.3 419.366225166 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.92915104 49.2860985944 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.6315789474 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1052631579 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.10526315789 7.06452816374 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.28282508163 0.272083759551 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0803165549917 0.0996497079465 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0733666926733 0.0662205650399 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.160291869732 0.162205337803 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0430916862771 0.0443174109184 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.48 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.