Some people think that more money should be spent on protecting endangered species while others think it is a waste of valuable money.
Recently, the phenomenon of spending money on protecting endangered species and its corresponding impacts have sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of complex procedures, is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and consequently positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that the money for protecting some valuable species can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a general standpoint, paying attention to endangered species can provide the society with some noticeable effects, which are rooted in the fact that crucial issues, as well as ultimate outcomes, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment, which discovered current policies. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both this common phenomenon and accordingly complicated procedures apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of the public arena, encourage for spending money focus on endangered animals and other living creatures might increase the consequences of critical needs. Moreover, fundamental aspects of thinking as a waste of valuable money could relate to this reality that the demerits of expenses to the species extinction. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of creative processes is correlated negatively with vital issues. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notions of this remarkable phenomenon.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of spending money on endangered species far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of this unique phenomenon prove the significance of total outcomes, but also pinpoint thorny issues' potential implications.
- some effective people like repetitive routine such as eating the same food, do you like this way? discuss your views. 88
- Some people think that more money should be spent on protecting endangered species while others think it is a waste of valuable money. 89
- If you want to study a particular area of climate change, which area/subject will you choose? 88
- Is tourism in less developed countries advantage or disadvantage? Discuss your views and give your opinion. 88
- Effect of internet and social media on young people communication and forming language 88
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, apparently, but, consequently, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 8.36945812808 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 20.9802955665 100% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 31.9359605911 110% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.75862068966 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1625.0 1207.87684729 135% => OK
No of words: 283.0 242.827586207 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.74204946996 5.00649968141 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10153676581 3.92707691288 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19172239712 2.71678728327 117% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 139.433497537 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.639575971731 0.580463131201 110% => OK
syllable_count: 522.9 379.143842365 138% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.5024630542 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.3031219961 50.4703680194 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.416666667 104.977214359 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5833333333 20.9669160288 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.66666666667 7.25397266985 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 6.9802955665 129% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 2.75862068966 36% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 2.91625615764 69% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.27674670013 0.242375264174 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0878441840537 0.0925447433944 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0906674058268 0.071462118173 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149773354169 0.151781067708 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0681900872761 0.0609392437508 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 12.6369458128 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 53.1260098522 59% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 10.9458128079 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.31 11.5310837438 141% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.91 8.32886699507 131% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 55.0591133005 200% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.94827586207 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.3980295567 108% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.5123152709 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.8888888889 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 80.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.