The author states about the methods which can solve the problem of declining frog population. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter- argues that viewpoint trying to prove that these three methods do not seem convincing.
First and foremost, the writer mentions that one of the factors that made it possible for population of frogs to decline is the usage of pesticides from farmers. Actually, if the laws prohibited the farmers from using harmful pesticides, it would significantly reduce the harm. On the contrary, the professor cannot disagree more, reasoning that if the farmers are prohibit to use pesticides they cannot protect their corp, which may lead them to not compete on market.
The second argument the author gives is that the presence of fungus that is spread worldwide might be another factor that they should consider too. The fungus causes thickening of frogs skin. Therefore, the frog cannot absorb the water. They should use the treatment with antifungal medication to solve this problem. However, the lecturer cannot be more outraged, explaining that this treatment is impossible because they have to treat all generations and each individual, which it is going to be very expensive.
Lastly, on one hand, the passage points out that the human activities are a big threat for decline of frog population. Humans should stop using water and wetlands from which the frogs depend the most. Nevertheless, the professor argues that humans are not the biggest threat or reducing frogs population. It is the global warming that had caused all this threat.
Although, the text suggests three methods of protecting declining of frog population, the lecturer believes that none of them are persuasive.
.
The author states about the methods which can solve the problem of declining frog population. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter- argues that viewpoint trying to prove that these three methods do not seem convincing.
First and foremost, the writer mentions that one of the factors that made it possible for population of frogs to decline is the usage of pesticides from farmers. Actually, if the laws prohibited the farmers from using harmful pesticides, it would significantly reduce the harm. On the contrary, the professor cannot disagree more, reasoning that if the farmers are prohibit to use pesticides they cannot protect their corp, which may lead them to not compete on market.
The second argument the author gives is that the presence of fungus that is spread worldwide might be another factor that they should consider too. The fungus causes thickening of frogs skin. Therefore, the frog cannot absorb the water. They should use the treatment with antifungal medication to solve this problem. However, the lecturer cannot be more outraged, explaining that this treatment is impossible because they have to treat all generations and each individual, which it is going to be very expensive.
Lastly, on one hand, the passage points out that the human activities are a big threat for decline of frog population. Humans should stop using water and wetlands from which the frogs depend the most. Nevertheless, the professor argues that humans are not the biggest threat or reducing frogs population. It is the global warming that had caused all this threat.
Although, the text suggests three methods of protecting declining of frog population, the lecturer believes that none of them are persuasive.
.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 366, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'prohibited'.
Suggestion: prohibited
...more, reasoning that if the farmers are prohibit to use pesticides they cannot protect t...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 451, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t their corp, which may lead them to not compete on market. The second argumen...
^^
Line 8, column 143, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ieves that none of them are persuasive. .
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, however, if, lastly, may, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1454.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 277.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24909747292 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07962216107 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61912993628 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.563176895307 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 429.3 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.8408179073 49.2860985944 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.9333333333 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4666666667 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.33333333333 7.06452816374 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.383975355257 0.272083759551 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.127677904391 0.0996497079465 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.178832109755 0.0662205650399 270% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.26710841176 0.162205337803 165% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.311681428712 0.0443174109184 703% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.86 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.