Some people think that a huge amount of money is spent on the protection of wild animals, and that this money should be better spent on human population. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Wildlife conservation certainly consumes a massive resource, and this matter has courted enormous criticisms regarding the impoverished population. To quite a few people, it is alleged as an ethical dilemma; however, I strongly believe that protecting wild animals is the utmost investment wherein humans should allocate their fiscal resources.
Firstly, protecting wild animals and many other undomesticated creatures not only promotes biodiversity but also reinforces our living environment. All living creatures in the wild are engaged with distinctive functions as to retain a sustainable natural environment and the intricate relationships between organisms; therefore, when wildlife is radically deteriorated from its natural habitat, it is unlikely to avoid the disruption of the ecological balance. For example, when one species of herbivorous prey becomes extinct, a considerable decline in its predator population will appear inevitable due to food scarcity, thereby consecutively resulting in the degradation of many other related habitants and the vulnerable ecosystem as a whole. Needless to say, as the last living creature perishes, it is our human species that will ultimately take the toll.
Secondly, while human race has undoubtedly benefited from wildlife preservation, the amount of resource implemented in this realm proposes far more rewarding outcomes than that of spending on global population. According to the World Health Organization, as many as 80% of medical prescriptions are primarily derived from animals and plants, which constitutes an essential alternative in terms of both ailment treatment and human lifespan expansion. In other words, by conserving undomesticated animals and their ecological habitats, humankind is executing critical maneuvers in favour of our life quality, expectancy and sustainability. Moreover, investment of wildlife conservation programs are neither extravagant nor squandering national revenues as many individuals have accused. There is compelling evidence allegedly regarding the feeble achievement of the constantly replenished funds into addressing our community’s social crisis such as famine or environmental contamination. This is in all likelihood presented in underdeveloped countries where the indigent citizens are supposed to experience a better, healthier life assisted by the foreign aid over the past decades, yet remain living in poverty-stricken conditions whereas their upper-class counterparts are luxuriating in their own mansions. Having said that, decent people should be acclaimed for their immense generosity; however, we all should also take into considerations how to effectively allocate our financial resources.
To summarize, I rigidly refute the view described in the statement. Not only does wildlife conservation, by and large, hold the crucial key to the survival of mankind but it is also our wise investment in the long run.
- The first chart below shows how energy is used in an average Australian household. The second chart shows the greenhouse gas emissions which result from this energy use.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make compa 73
- Some people think that a huge amount of money is spent on the protection of wild animals, and that this money should be better spent on human population. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? 89
- The first chart below shows how energy is used in an average Australian household. The second chart shows the greenhouse gas emissions which result from this energy use.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make compa 73
- The best way to solve the world’s environmental problems is to increase the cost of fuel. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 89
- Every year several languages die out. Some people think that this is not important because life will be easier if there are fewer languages in the world. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 89
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, whereas, while, as to, for example, such as, by and large, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 24.0651302605 112% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 8.3376753507 276% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2514.0 1615.20841683 156% => OK
No of words: 421.0 315.596192385 133% => OK
Chars per words: 5.97149643705 5.12529762239 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52971130743 4.20363070211 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.35650886144 2.80592935109 120% => OK
Unique words: 265.0 176.041082164 151% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.62945368171 0.561755894193 112% => OK
syllable_count: 814.5 506.74238477 161% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 20.2975951904 138% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 69.2511050854 49.4020404114 140% => OK
Chars per sentence: 167.6 106.682146367 157% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0666666667 20.7667163134 135% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.1333333333 7.06120827912 158% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.109901361823 0.244688304435 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0332165507873 0.084324248473 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0342367638362 0.0667982634062 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0617719426747 0.151304729494 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0443044572795 0.056905535591 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.7 13.0946893788 158% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 17.68 50.2224549098 35% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.8 11.3001002004 158% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.64 12.4159519038 142% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.44 8.58950901804 133% => OK
difficult_words: 171.0 78.4519038076 218% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 9.78957915832 158% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.1190380762 130% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 10.7795591182 167% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.