The article states that several methods have been proposed to solve the problem of declining frog populations and provides three reasons of support. Conversely, the professor states that none of these methods have solved the decline of frogs population practically or slowed down it and she refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading avers that the harm that pesticides cause to frogs population could be reduced by laws that prohibited farmers from using it near frogs population areas. The professor disagree wiith point by saying this method has problem economically and its unfair to farmers. First of all, farmers rely on pesticides for their cultivation and so they will negatively effected if this law would legislated. And secondly, this law would bring only disadvantages to farmers who cultivated near frogs areas while others would benefit from it.
Second, the article claims that since fungus infection cause frogs to thickeneing their skin and lower water absorption, applied an antifungal on large scale would protect frog populations from infection. On the other hand, the professor refutes this point. She says that there is problems with this method by explaining that in order to treat infected frogs with antifungal, it should be applied individually for each frog. This treatment is so difficult to do especially if they want to apply on large scale of frogs. In addition to, this treatment could not prevent fungus infection from passing to next generation of frogs and consequently, they have to capture and treat the new generation. The professor concludes this method is so complicated and expensive to stop declining in frogs populations.
Third, the reading posits that protection water habitats for frogs from excessive water use and develpment would recover frog populations. The professor disagrees with this point. She says that this method will not save frogs population from reducing because excessive water use and develpment is not the real cause. The big threat to frogs is the global warming. It leads to disappearance of lakes and marshes. As a result reducing human activity from water habitats to frogs will unlikely stop the decline of frogs populations.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 65, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'frog'.
Suggestion: frog
... that the harm that pesticides cause to frogs population could be reduced by laws tha...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 374, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'effect'
Suggestion: effect
...cultivation and so they will negatively effected if this law would legislated. And secon...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 401, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'legislate'
Suggestion: legislate
...l negatively effected if this law would legislated. And secondly, this law would bring on...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 426, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...this law would legislated. And secondly, this law would bring only disadvantages ...
^^
Line 5, column 273, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[3]
Message: Did you mean 'there are problems'?
Suggestion: there are problems
...essor refutes this point. She says that there is problems with this method by explaining that in ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 413, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... to disappearance of lakes and marshes. As a result reducing human activity from w...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, conversely, first, if, second, secondly, so, third, while, in addition, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 22.412803532 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 48.0 30.3222958057 158% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 5.01324503311 359% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1866.0 1373.03311258 136% => OK
No of words: 353.0 270.72406181 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28611898017 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33454660006 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71213875365 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 145.348785872 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507082152975 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 558.9 419.366225166 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.6803633694 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.666666667 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6111111111 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.22222222222 7.06452816374 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.539079057674 0.272083759551 198% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.185984039474 0.0996497079465 187% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.13773901216 0.0662205650399 208% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.348623242302 0.162205337803 215% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0847942311122 0.0443174109184 191% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 63.6247240618 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.