In recent years, many frog species around the world have declined in numbers or even gone extinct due to changes in their environment. These population declines and extinctions have serious consequences for the ecosystems in which frogs live; for example, frogs help play a role in protecting humans by eating disease-carrying insects. Several methods have been proposed to solve the problem of declining frog populations.
First, frogs are being harmed by pesticides, which are chemicals used to prevent insects from damaging farm crops such as corn and sugarcane. Pesticides often spread from farmland into neighboring frog habitats. Once pesticides enter a frog’s body, they attack the nervous system, leading to severe breathing problems. If laws prohibited the farmers from using harmful pesticides near sensitive frog populations, it would significantly reduce the harm pesticides cause to frogs.
A second major factor in frog population decline is a fungus that has spread around the world with deadly effect. The fungus causes thickening of the skin, and since frogs use their skin to absorb water, infected frogs die of dehydration. Recently, researchers have discovered several ways to treat or prevent infection, including antifungal medication and treatments that kill the fungus with heat. Those treatments, if applied on a large scale, would protect sensitive frog populations from infection.
Third, in a great many cases, frog populations are in decline simply because their natural habitats are threatened. Since most frog species lay their eggs in water, they are dependent on water and wetland habitats. Many such habitats are threatened by human activities, including excessive water use or the draining of wetlands to make them suitable for development. If key water habitats such as lakes and marshes were better protected from excessive water use and development, many frog species would recover.
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific methods proposed in the reading passage.
Both the lecture and the reading discuss the methods used to slow the decline of frog population. The author provides three possible recammondations. However, the professor disagree with the author and contends that each solution is not practical. Accordingly, she gives three counterclaims.
To begin with, the passage suggests the laws prohibit the farmer from using pesticides that harm frogs whereas the scholar challenges the suggestion by mentioning that this method is not effective from economic perspective. She further explains that it would be unfair for the farmer who are prohibited because they will lose their harvest and have a disadvantage compared to competing farmer.
In the second place, the reading recommends to use a new medication on a large scale to protect frogs. Nevertheless, the speaker seriously challenge the author. To be more specific, this method takes a lot of effort and is time-consuming, because new medication has to be applied to each frog individually and it does not pass to the next generation. In consequence, the work which must be done repeatedly is complicated and expensive.
Last but not least, the professor contends that although protecting water land is a good idea, it is useless because it is not the biggest problem. Instead, the biggest problem is global warming, which results in threatening the habits. In other words, even if people reduce excessive water use, it would not change the impact of global warming and recover the frog species.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, whereas, as to, in other words, to begin with, in the second place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1270.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 241.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26970954357 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94007293032 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94359665743 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.618257261411 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 384.3 419.366225166 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.1367555737 49.2860985944 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.6923076923 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5384615385 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.46153846154 7.06452816374 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.116244639064 0.272083759551 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0341661573535 0.0996497079465 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0368730776235 0.0662205650399 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0616037144597 0.162205337803 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0135177754192 0.0443174109184 31% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.31 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.