The reading states that there are several methods have been proposed to solve the problem of declining frog populations. On the other hand, the lecturer finds all the reasons mentioned by the reading dubious and refutes them all by specific details.
First, the reading states that laws prohibit farmers from using harmful pesticides near sensitive frog populations, pesticide damage to frogs is significantly reduced. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that such a decision is not economically promising and is not fair to farmers. Because, with such decision farmers, lose both marketing and more crops at the same time.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that treatment of antifungal medication can kill the fungus with heat. Those treatments, if applied on a large scale, would protect sensitive frog populations from infection. On the contrary, the professor states that treatments should be applied for each kind of frog, owing to individually frogs need individual treatments, and the treatments must be repeated several times, which is costly.
Finally, the author argues that many frog species will recover if key aquatic habitats such as lakes and swamps are better protected from overuse. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this issue because wetlands and wetlands are not a problem, and the real problem that threatens the frog population is global warming, and solutions to such problems must be found.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, finally, first, furthermore, if, so, in contrast, kind of, such as, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 15.1003584229 79% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 9.8082437276 71% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.0286738351 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 43.0788530466 23% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 52.1666666667 42% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 4.0 8.0752688172 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1216.0 1977.66487455 61% => OK
No of words: 226.0 407.700716846 55% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.38053097345 4.8611393121 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.87727950738 4.48103885553 87% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70666288338 2.67179642975 101% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 212.727598566 68% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.641592920354 0.524837075471 122% => OK
syllable_count: 361.8 618.680645161 58% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 9.59856630824 10% => OK
Article: 8.0 3.08781362007 259% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 20.6003584229 49% => 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: 42.1051065787 48.9658058833 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.6 100.406767564 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6 20.6045352989 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.4 5.45110844103 209% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 11.8709677419 34% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.88709677419 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.148976105896 0.236089414692 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0535706859177 0.076458572812 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0517378825143 0.0737576698707 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.082435325321 0.150856017488 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.022814469844 0.0645574589148 35% => 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: 15.2 11.7677419355 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 58.1214874552 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.1575268817 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.22 10.9000537634 130% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.55 8.01818996416 119% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 86.8835125448 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => 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.
More content wanted.
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.