The author suggests three methods to solve the problem of declining in frogs population around the world. The professor, however, claims that none of those methods offers practical solution in slowing down the decline in frog population.
First, the author proposes that banning harmful pesticides use in farms near sensitive frog population would significantly decrease the risk that pesticides pose for frogs. Yet, the lecturer opposes this idea by stating that reducing pesticides use is neither fair nor practical. She pointed out that farmers rely on pesticides to protect their corps, and prohibiting the usage of pesticides will affect negatively the yield rate of farmers who are near the frog populations compared to the competitors who are not. This indicating that banning pesticides use is not fair solution.
Second ,the passage claims that sensitive frogs population can be protected from fungal infections by applying antifungal medications and other types of treatments . Nevertheless, the professor cast doubt on this point by explaining that these treatments would not prevent the disease from passing among generations, so we should treat every generation which is definitely unpractical and expensive.
Finally, the author suggests that frogs population are in decline because of the excessive water use of lakes and marshes by human activities and if those key habitats are protected, the frogs population would recover. In contrast, the professor opposes this method and explained that human usage of water is not the problem. She puts forth the idea that the global warming is the actual threat for frog natural habitats. Thus protecting those key habitats from excessive human use of water is not going to protect it from global warming that really causes water loss from lakes and marshes.
To sum up, in the lecture the professor disputes every proposition made in the passage to solve the problem of the decline in frog population, and explains that each method has its drawbacks.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 7, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ides use is not fair solution. Second ,the passage claims that sensitive frogs ...
^^
Line 5, column 43, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...cond ,the passage claims that sensitive frogs population can be protected from fungal...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 164, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...edications and other types of treatments . Nevertheless, the professor cast doubt ...
^^
Line 7, column 97, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n decline because of the excessive water use of lakes and marshes by human activi...
^^
Line 7, column 189, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...f those key habitats are protected, the frogs population would recover. In contrast, ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 382, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the idea that the global warming is the actual threat for frog natural habitats....
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, really, second, so, thus, in contrast, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1704.0 1373.03311258 124% => OK
No of words: 317.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.37539432177 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71208503647 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.526813880126 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 523.8 419.366225166 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.9820263754 49.2860985944 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.076923077 110.228320801 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3846153846 21.698381199 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.224255224739 0.272083759551 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0955417036258 0.0996497079465 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0877830116957 0.0662205650399 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154850993372 0.162205337803 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0999340316701 0.0443174109184 225% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 13.3589403974 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 53.8541721854 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.22 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.06 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.