In this set of materials, the reading passage explores the methods to slow down the declination of frog populations, and the professor's lecture deals with the same topic. However, she casts doubts on these ways. And in the lecture, she provides three specific points to substantiate her opinion.
To begin with, even though the reading passage suggests that government should establish related regulations to prohibit farmers from using toxic pesticides which have deadly effects on frogs near frog habitats, the professor argues in the lecture that this is neither feasible nor economical. This is because if farmers are not allowed to use pesticides on their crops, they cannot compete with other cheaper crops which used pesticides in production. As a result, farms will not gain profits from their crops, and this will be a great loss in economy. Clearly, professor's argument refutes its counterpart in the reading.
Moreover, despite the statement in the reading that antifungal medicine could be used to cure fungus-infected frogs, the professor contends that capturing and applying medicine to every infected frogs are difficult and require huge efforts. She supports this point with the fact that the treatment will not pass down through genes to frogs' offspring; therefore, they still need extra efforts to catch frogs and apply medicines on them.
Finally, the author of the reading claims that human activities damage frogs' habitats via developing wetlands, whereas the professor asserts that it is global warming, rather than human activities, that compromise their habitats. Then she explains that this claim is indefensible by pointing out that water and wetlands are declining due to global warming; hence, not only frogs but also several species are disappearing.
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'moreover', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'therefore', 'whereas', 'as a result', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.244372990354 0.261695866417 93% => OK
Verbs: 0.167202572347 0.158904122519 105% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0739549839228 0.0723426182421 102% => OK
Adverbs: 0.048231511254 0.0435111971325 111% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0418006430868 0.0277247811725 151% => OK
Prepositions: 0.131832797428 0.128828473217 102% => OK
Participles: 0.0353697749196 0.0370669169778 95% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.66732176792 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.032154340836 0.0208969081088 154% => OK
Particles: 0.0096463022508 0.00154638098197 624% => OK
Determiners: 0.0900321543408 0.128158765124 70% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0192926045016 0.0158828679856 121% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0064308681672 0.0114777025283 56% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1779.0 1645.83664459 108% => OK
No of words: 279.0 271.125827815 103% => OK
Chars per words: 6.37634408602 6.08160592843 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08696624509 4.04852973271 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.401433691756 0.374372842146 107% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.336917562724 0.287516216867 117% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.232974910394 0.187439937562 124% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.136200716846 0.113142543107 120% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66732176792 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.63082437276 0.539623497131 117% => OK
Word variations: 71.6057810396 53.8517498576 133% => OK
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0529801325 84% => OK
Sentence length: 25.3636363636 21.7502111507 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.9549670844 49.3711431718 154% => OK
Chars per sentence: 161.727272727 132.220823453 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.3636363636 21.7502111507 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.27272727273 0.878197800319 145% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.39072847682 0% => OK
Readability: 59.055392636 50.5018328374 117% => OK
Elegance: 1.6 1.90840788429 84% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.517066410723 0.549887131256 94% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.116487685889 0.142949733639 81% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0684507713001 0.0787303798458 87% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.594034648066 0.631733273073 94% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.187822741843 0.139662658121 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.20657888288 0.266732575781 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0910088619975 0.103435571967 88% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.308325604845 0.414875509568 74% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.00880708025254 0.0530846634433 17% => Paragraphs are so close to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.334566851134 0.40443939384 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0458352298661 0.0528353158467 87% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.26048565121 70% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 3.49668874172 86% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 3.62251655629 83% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 3.1766004415 94% => OK
Total topic words: 9.0 10.2958057395 87% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.