Some people think that too much money and too many resources have been given to the protection of wild animals.
Do you agree or disagree?
Some people claim that wild animals’ preservation uses much more financial resource and other resources than it should. Personally, I strongly disagree with this statement because of the importance of wild animals in the ecosystem and the worthiness of preservation compared to money and other resources.
First of all, wild animals play a vital part in the balanced ecosystem as it maintains biodiversity. The shortage of apex predators due to illegal poaching can indirectly lead to a dramatic fall of other plants. This is the result of exceeding growth in herbivores’ population as these animals are right on the top of botanical species in the food chain and extremely harmful to the biodiversity. In addition, marine creatures such as clams contribute enormously to maintain ocean ecosystem at a balanced level. The life of several specific species in the sea depends a lot on water quality. With the over exploitation of shellfishes, sea water can no longer be filtered, as those animals are the main marine force in purifying the ocean, which result in disappearance of fishes in the area.
Secondly, resources are being used efficiently rather than wastefully to preserve wild creatures. The situation of overusing money is irrational because it actually has no real value compared to wild animals and is just a form of valuation that human created to estimate the value of certain things. It is clear that money is printable and quite unlimited while living creatures in the wild cannot be produced in such way and needed to follow the long natural process of reproduction. Other resources such as human and land are being utilized in the most possibly efficient way to protect wild animals. The forces being in charge of preservation is still limited in some areas compared to the quantity of illegal poachers and needed to be increased. Furthermore, most preservation regions are naturally wild habitats of animals and being remained unchanged to protect the animals there meanwhile artificial constructions just occupy a small proportion of such places and should increased as well.
In conclusion, the importance of wild animals in the ecosystem and the worthiness of preservation, in my opinion, are two main reasons that make it unreasonable to claim that too much financial resource and other resources are being used for protecting wild animals.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-08-01 | Nguyen Hung | 73 | view |
- Government investment in the arts such as music and theatre is a waste of money Governments must invest this money in public services instead To what extent do you agree with this statement 89
- Some people think that too much money and too many resources have been given to the protection of wild animals Do you agree or disagree 73
- It is neither possible nor useful for the government to provide university places for a large proportion of students To what extent do you agree or disagree 61
- In many countries imprisonment is the most common solution to crimes However some people believe that better education will be a more effective solution To what extent do you agree or disagree 61
- Some universities are offering online courses as an alternative to classes delivered in campus Is this a positive or negative development 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, furthermore, if, second, secondly, so, still, well, while, in addition, in conclusion, such as, first of all, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 13.1623246493 160% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 41.998997996 138% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1989.0 1615.20841683 123% => OK
No of words: 382.0 315.596192385 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20680628272 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42095241839 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96711899428 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 176.041082164 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.502617801047 0.561755894193 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 639.0 506.74238477 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 55.2613990252 49.4020404114 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.6 106.682146367 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4666666667 20.7667163134 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.66666666667 7.06120827912 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
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: 0.223010070671 0.244688304435 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0744777219312 0.084324248473 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0708328690046 0.0667982634062 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158709274662 0.151304729494 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0767110290256 0.056905535591 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 13.0946893788 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 50.2224549098 75% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.4159519038 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 78.4519038076 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.