frogs population
In the passage the author claims that several methods exist which can be used to solve the problem of declining frog populations causing serious harsh consequences. The professor, on the other hand, casts doubt on this idea and categorically denies all the methods mentioned in the passage through citing downsides of each one.
First of all, According to the passage, prohibiting farmers from spreading pesticides which are chemicals that prevent insects from damaging farm crops, makes frog populations increase. The lecturer, nevertheless, dismisses the author's view and points out that enacting some laws to prohibit farmers from using harmful pesticides is not economically practical. Since the less pesticides are used, the more insects invade to crops. As a result, this idea leads to severe disadvantages such as losing more crops, in the other words, gaining less yield.
Second, the passage goes on to mention that because of deadly effect of fungus especially for frogs as the mean of dehydration, preventing infections caused by fungus with several treatments can be helpful. Nonetheless, the lecturer supports a contradictory view as compared to that presented in the reading. She notes that implementing this method and treatments is completely of probable since it should be done again and again in order to be lucrative. Moreover, she asserts that such an idea is large-scale difficult, complicated and expensive.
Eventually, the author states that since frog populations are deeply depended to their habitats which are mostly water ones, by preventing these habitants from human activities we can maintain frog population. However, the speaker refutes it, saying that the main reason of water disappearing is global warming. Consequently, protecting water habitats is a total waste of money and it is totally unlikely that inhabitants stop changing by protecting.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 372, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun pesticides is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...s not economically practical. Since the less pesticides are used, the more insects i...
^^^^
Line 7, column 114, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'watered'.
Suggestion: watered
...nded to their habitats which are mostly water ones, by preventing these habitants fro...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, such as, 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 : 14.0 15.1003584229 93% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 9.8082437276 41% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 13.8261648746 43% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 43.0788530466 49% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 52.1666666667 75% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.0752688172 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1602.0 1977.66487455 81% => OK
No of words: 291.0 407.700716846 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.50515463918 4.8611393121 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13022058845 4.48103885553 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94170921774 2.67179642975 110% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 212.727598566 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.604810996564 0.524837075471 115% => OK
syllable_count: 488.7 618.680645161 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 9.59856630824 31% => OK
Article: 7.0 3.08781362007 227% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 20.6003584229 63% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.0234558291 48.9658058833 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.230769231 100.406767564 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3846153846 20.6045352989 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.4615384615 5.45110844103 192% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 11.8709677419 25% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.213856820115 0.236089414692 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0645859110234 0.076458572812 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106621992967 0.0737576698707 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127862968943 0.150856017488 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0560154947229 0.0645574589148 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 11.7677419355 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 58.1214874552 70% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.1575268817 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 10.9000537634 137% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.1 8.01818996416 126% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 86.8835125448 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.002688172 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.