It is more important to use the land for human needs like farms, houses, and factories than for saving endangered animals.
As the human population has increased over time, more land has become necessary to accommodate the growing number of people, resulting in the reduction of the habitats of wild animals. In this situation, many people question whether the land should be used for the needs of humans or for saving endangered animals. I firmly believe that it should be used to save endangered animals for two reasons.
First, land should be used for endangered animals rather than human beings because the land is essential for animals, while that is not the case for human beings. Due to developments in architecture and technology, it has become possible to use a small amount of land to accommodate a large number of people by constructing tall buildings. For example, the tallest building built by humans is the Burj Khalifa, which is more than 160 floors tall and can accommodate thousands of people. While human beings can satisfy their need for land in this way, it is not possible for animals since they have adapted to live in particular environments with specific conditions. If the surrounding environment does not satisfy the conditions of their natural habitat, those animals eventually become extinct. This is why it is highly preferable to use the land for endangered animals.
Second, all living species on Earth are interconnected and allowing endangered species to go extinct can have devastating results. The global ecosystem sustains life with sophisticated yet delicate food chains. When there is no space to preserve animals, they will die out, and then the chain will collapse. For example, grey wolves were eliminated from the Yellowstone area in the US through hunting. This had a huge impact on the ecosystem of Yellowstone, as the number of large herbivores like deer drastically increased, and they ate most of the available food. That caused their population to crash, and drove out many other species, which completely altered the composition of the forest. After wolves were reintroduced, the food chain returned to its former state.
Because of these two reasons, the land should be used to preserve endangered animals. The human population is increasing, and the demand for food and shelter is also on the rise. However, this does not mean that saving endangered animals should become less of a priority.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-03-18 | memi00 | 66 | view |
| 2021-06-18 | Huge Jackman | 60 | view |
| 2021-03-22 | Attia Yaqoob | 73 | view |
| 2020-12-24 | Greatness | 73 | view |
| 2020-08-30 | sehrish | 60 | view |
- The Komodo dragon is a very large species of lizard that lives on a few small islands in Indonesia When the reptiles were first intensively studied their hunting technique left many biologists puzzled because they simply bit their prey and then waited for 80
- Plastic bags are terrible for the environment They should be banned everywhere 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement The extended family grandparents cousins aunts and uncles is less important now than it was in the past 78
- which one do you prefer working on work assignment independently or as a group 60
- It is more important to use the land for human needs like farms houses and factories than for saving endangered animals 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 284, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...e a small amount of land to accommodate a large number of people by constructing tall buildings. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, second, so, then, while, for example, in particular
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 15.1003584229 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 9.8082437276 112% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.0286738351 63% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 43.0788530466 56% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 52.1666666667 90% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.0752688172 99% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1948.0 1977.66487455 99% => OK
No of words: 380.0 407.700716846 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12631578947 4.8611393121 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41515443553 4.48103885553 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78935451583 2.67179642975 104% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 212.727598566 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.518421052632 0.524837075471 99% => OK
syllable_count: 614.7 618.680645161 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 9.59856630824 94% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.51792114695 227% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.2910243707 48.9658058833 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.526315789 100.406767564 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 20.6045352989 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.05263157895 5.45110844103 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8709677419 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.88709677419 143% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.405857648439 0.236089414692 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126306110384 0.076458572812 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.123074325032 0.0737576698707 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.265494813021 0.150856017488 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.141320297666 0.0645574589148 219% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 11.7677419355 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 58.1214874552 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 10.9000537634 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.01818996416 104% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 86.8835125448 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.002688172 120% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => 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: 66.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.0 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.