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.
The reading and listening passages both discuss how to protect frogs. The author proposes three methods. However, the speaker holds these arguments questionable.
First of all, the article claims that frogs are being harmed by pesticides, and if we stop to use it, we could save frogs. Nevertheless, the lecture points out that when we prohibit using the pesticides, we also decrease the ability of competition to our farmer with others because pesticides could let crops grow much great. As a result, the farmers will totally lose the state in the markets.
Secondly, the writer says the second way to save frogs is preventing them away from infection. On the other hand, the lecturer argues that it is very difficult to do the method. Since the methods of the treatments could only treat a frog at one time, we need to capture every individual frog so that we could prevent the infection. Besides, the treatments are not directly available in their children. Thus, we have to capture them again and again if we apply the treatments.
Furthermore, the author states that people can protect frogs by protecting their habitats such as lakes and marshes. However, the speaker contends many breaks are because of the climate change. Actually, Global warming is the main factor to reduce frog's habitats. Practically, even if we directly stop to threaten the habitats, the global environmental change still harm the habitats.
To sum up, all the arguments mentioned in the reading passage are plausible according to the speaker.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, besides, first, furthermore, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, still, thus, in fact, such as, as a result, first of all, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 15.1003584229 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 9.8082437276 71% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 13.8261648746 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.0286738351 54% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 43.0788530466 51% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 52.1666666667 52% => More preposition wanted.
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: 1284.0 1977.66487455 65% => OK
No of words: 252.0 407.700716846 62% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09523809524 4.8611393121 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98428260373 4.48103885553 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65454539179 2.67179642975 99% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 212.727598566 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.619047619048 0.524837075471 118% => OK
syllable_count: 386.1 618.680645161 62% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 12.0 3.08781362007 389% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.6003584229 78% => 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: 15.0 20.1344086022 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.0327990528 48.9658058833 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 80.25 100.406767564 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.75 20.6045352989 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.25 5.45110844103 206% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 11.8709677419 51% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0988549379923 0.236089414692 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.030154357689 0.076458572812 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0257496111114 0.0737576698707 35% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0454206179686 0.150856017488 30% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.041291692218 0.0645574589148 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.5 11.7677419355 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 58.1214874552 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 10.1575268817 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.0 10.9000537634 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.01818996416 107% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 86.8835125448 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.002688172 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.0537634409 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 10.247311828 78% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
More content wanted.
Rates: 66.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.0 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.