Both government and individuals are spending too much money protecting animals and their habitat. This money should be better spent dealing with fundamental issues in society such as poverty and health care. To what extent do you agree?
The budgetary allocation to the prevention of animals and their habit from the threat expensed by not only government but also citizens. However, it is more essential to spend money on tackling society's problems. From my perspective, I partly agree with this idea which is illustrated below.
There are several benefits when ensuring the safety of wildlife. Firstly, a handful number of rare animals would be on the edge of extinction; therefore, unless the construction of wildlife sanctuaries is given financial aid by authorities, the existence of some kind of endangered animals would be assured because overfishing and poaching may be underused. Secondly, the reliance on animal behaviours may help scientists to define the best method for preservation of the natural habitat. For example, some kinds of crocodiles have abilities to make predictions about the unprecedented events such as earthquakes, tsunami or hail.
Apart from the statement mentioned above, the quality of human life is also especially important in social development. Firstly, living below poverty lines is a major problem in some underdeveloped countries. This is because mortality rates is extremely increasing due to annual starvation without any financial support from local authorities. Secondly, a real shortage of healthcare services has tremendous impacts on citizens' health conditions. For instance, the outbreak of epidemic in African countries might be the culprit of insufficient professional doctors, hospitals, and infirmaries. Therefore, spending money on these fields is fundamentally paramount.
In conclusion, in my opinion, both wildlife and human life are equally crucial in society; therefore, national budgets should be allocated proportionately to these sections.
The budgetary allocation to the prevention of animals and their habit from the threat expensed by not only government but also citizens. The budgetary allocation to the prevention of animals and their habit from the threat expensed by not only government but also citizens. The budgetary allocation to the prevention of animals and their habit from the threat expensed by not only government but also citizens.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-08 | eppa akhil | 78 | view |
| 2019-07-08 | eppa akhil | 78 | view |
| 2019-01-26 | Buiduyen | 56 | view |
| 2018-09-05 | HaiTrieuIELTS | 78 | view |
| 2018-09-05 | HaiTrieuIELTS | 73 | view |
- The table below gives information on consumer spending on different items in five different countries in 2002 61
- Both government and individuals are spending too much money protecting animals and their habitat. This money should be better spent dealing with fundamental issues in society such as poverty and health care. To what extent do you agree? 73
- The table below gives information on consumer spending on different items in five different countries in 2002 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 11
- animal human poverty health agree disagree 73
- Both government and individuals are spending too much money protecting animals and their habitat. This money should be better spent dealing with fundamental issues in society such as poverty and health care. To what extent do you agree? 67
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 419, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'citizens'' or 'citizen's'?
Suggestion: citizens'; citizen's
...care services has tremendous impacts on citizens health conditions. For instance, the ou...
^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 275, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... not only government but also citizens. The budgetary allocation to the prevention ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, apart from, for example, for instance, in conclusion, kind of, such as, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 7.30460921844 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 24.0651302605 50% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 41.998997996 129% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 8.3376753507 252% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1865.0 1615.20841683 115% => OK
No of words: 327.0 315.596192385 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.70336391437 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13953658255 2.80592935109 112% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 176.041082164 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544342507645 0.561755894193 97% => OK
syllable_count: 594.0 506.74238477 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 10.0 2.52805611222 396% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.4078609367 49.4020404114 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.705882353 106.682146367 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2352941176 20.7667163134 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.58823529412 7.06120827912 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.9879759519 201% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.184760988737 0.244688304435 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0602702094791 0.084324248473 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0437565798842 0.0667982634062 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0993736755833 0.151304729494 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0407582740748 0.056905535591 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 50.2224549098 70% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.78 12.4159519038 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.55 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 78.4519038076 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.