Corrections

I have read to very interesting texts about the need to save endangered experiences.

The two texts contrast different views on the relevance of protecting and preserving endangered species.

According to the first passage, all species deserve continuing to live on the face of the Earth.

In contrast, the second text considers whether it is actually necessary trying to maintain all species threatened by environmental undergoing changes.

The first text puts forward the example of the tiger that has to be saved in order to avoid ecological unbalance in India and Bangladesh.

In accordance with biological evidence, I am prone to think that should these tigers disappear, further ecological catastrophes would eventually be faced by inhabitants in these areas.

The latter idea could be supported by obvious facts such as not having enough crops for human consumption because they get eaten by small herbivores, which used to be prayed by the no-longer-existing tiger.

Fortunately, in these countries awareness of this environmental issue has been risen.

Hopefully, this eco-conservative mindset will spread worldwide.

It being possibly criticised by many, I regard the idea as very pragmatic indeed.

Taking into consideration that resources are limited, it is better to invest more effort into saving those species which can report more benefits from their salvation to us.

Naturally, endangered species are not guilty of suffering from human intervention in their habitats, which have gone out of hand.

In conclusion, it is my opinion that an extra-effort must be implemented so as to avoid farther loss of biodiversity.

Notwithstanding this fact, we should carefully plan how to drive such efforts into prioritising the protection and preservation of some of all the species that are on the verge of extinction.