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 reading states that the safeguarding of endangered species poses many drawbacks and provides three reasons of support. The professor claims that the extinction should be prevented and he refutes each of author's reasons.
To begin, the article avers that the extinction will not lead to ecological disaster. In contrast, the lecturer opposes this point by explaining that the dinosaur's extinction makes dramatic shift to our life. He clearly mentions that we dominate the earth, so when we lose one species, this will alter our ecosystem.
Second, the passage asserts that genetic engineering able to heal disease; consequently, endangered species will not be a source for medications. However, the professor refutes this point by saying that the nature play an important role to produce medicine. He states that plants compose 40% of drugs today, and we lose hundreds species every day. In fact, any extinction of these species, scientists will lose opportunity to discover a new drug.
Third, the reading posits that saving a species from extinction is cost a huge money. Conversely, the professor discusses that save one endangered species have a significant economical improvement. He gave an example of water musseles to illustrate this. These organisms are endangered and the remaining maintain many jobs and add millions of dollars to the economy, so these species are deserved to be save if only for economy benefits.
that the nature play an important role
that the nature plays an important role
that save one endangered species have a significant economical improvement.
that saving one endangered species has a significant economical improvement.
and the remaining maintain many jobs
and the remaining maintains many jobs
so these species are deserved to be save
so these species are deserved to be saved
Sentence: He gave an example of water musseles to illustrate this.
Error: musseles Suggestion: mussels
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 23 in 30
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 13 12
No. of Words: 227 250
No. of Characters: 1173 1200
No. of Different Words: 135 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.882 4.2
Average Word Length: 5.167 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.735 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 89 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 78 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 49 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.462 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 4.749 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.615 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.35 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.567 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.124 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4