The reading passage and the lecture are both about the issue of declining in the number of frogs in the world. More specifically, the writer discusses the environmental alteration endanger these animals, and some solution has been represented in order to inhibit their extinction. The lecturer in the listening passage disagrees with all the mentioned ways and provides some evidence to refute them.
First of all, the author begins by stating that the increase in the utilization of chemical pesticides could threaten the frogs' nervous system, and as a result, it will be harmful to their breathing. The lecturer, however, disagrees. She declares that putting some policies for reducing pesticides usages will not be economically useful. Because, with a decrease in using this type of pesticides, the farmlands will lose many crops.
Furthermore, the author claims that the researchers should exert some preventing ways in order to inhibit the presence of the fungus. In fact, the fungus can give rise to thickening the frogs' skin which leads to enjoying a decline in essential water absorption. Again, the lecturer believes there are flaws in the writer's argument. The speaker holds that the prohibiting approaches for this threat must be applied individually for each frog that will become extremely difficult. Moreover, She says that this modification will not pass through their generation, and ought to exercise again for their offsprings.
Lastly, the article mentions that some changing in the frogs' habitats should be employed since they are threatened by its affection, such as surplus water usages. In turn, the professor in the listening part is doubtful that this is accurate. She states that the mentioned modifications are not safe enough. In addition, she indicates that these are not actually serious problems. The main issue is regarding the global warming caused by human activities, and should be limited.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 314, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ecturer believes there are flaws in the writers argument. The speaker holds that the pr...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, moreover, regarding, so, in addition, in fact, such as, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1624.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 305.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32459016393 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78793808464 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 145.348785872 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.586885245902 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 498.6 419.366225166 119% => 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: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.4826432208 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.5294117647 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9411764706 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.76470588235 7.06452816374 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 4.45695364238 269% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.278027458612 0.272083759551 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0741483496508 0.0996497079465 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0746989650616 0.0662205650399 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158118135577 0.162205337803 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.035103706929 0.0443174109184 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.28 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.76 8.42419426049 116% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 63.6247240618 160% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.