Endangered Species
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 article states that the safeguarding of endangered species is unnatural, posing many drawbacks, and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that extinctions should be prevented whenever it is possible and refutes each of the author’s reasons.
First, the reading states that it is an exaggeration the claim that the extinction of any animal will certainly lead to an ecological disaster. The professor opposes this point by saying that it is no sign that this will not happens after a dramatic shift. He explains that after the mass extinction that happened on earth, we became a dominant species and we could maintain our lives with much effort. However, if one dangerous species had survived to that event, our entire population might be threatened by this animal and could also lead to our own extinction.
Second, the article claims that with the advent of new technologies, scientists no longer depend on nature as a source of inspiration for medication. However, the professor contends that the nature still plays a vital role on medication production. He presents that 40% of all drugs prescribed nowadays come from a natural source. Also, he explains that almost 100 species of plants are being extinct each day and every time we lose an opportunity of a new medical discovery.
Third, the reading avers that the huge cost of saving a species from extinction is often not justified. Conversely, the lecture refutes this point by stating that the preservation of a species could generate a big economic advantage. He states that 43% of all fresh water muscle species in the US are extinct or in danger of extinction. The remaining ones provide to the industry 10.000 jobs and generate 700.000 dollars of income. In that way, he states that every animal or plant deserved to be saved.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 225, Rule ID: DONT_NEEDS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'happen'?
Suggestion: happen
...g that it is no sign that this will not happens after a dramatic shift. He explains tha...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 225, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'happen'
Suggestion: happen
...g that it is no sign that this will not happens after a dramatic shift. He explains tha...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, first, however, if, second, so, still, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 22.412803532 165% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1527.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 303.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0396039604 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76701527971 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554455445545 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 468.9 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 26.7975123224 49.2860985944 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 101.8 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.13333333333 7.06452816374 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.161042754479 0.272083759551 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0525268553031 0.0996497079465 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0311856814655 0.0662205650399 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0965767415572 0.162205337803 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0270509949754 0.0443174109184 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.