The cane toad is a large (1.8 kg) amphibian species native to Central and South America. It was deliberately introduced to Australia in 1935 with the expectation that it would protect farmers’ crops by eating harmful insects. Unfortunately, the toad multiplied rapidly, and a large cane toad population now threatens small native animals that are not pests. Several measures have been proposed to stop the spread of the cane toad in Australia.
One way to prevent the spread of the toad would be to build a national fence. A fence that blocks the advance of the toads will prevent them from moving into those parts of Australia that they have not yet colonized. This approach has been used before: a national fence was erected in the early part of the twentieth century to prevent the spread of rabbits, another animal species that was introduced in Australia from abroad and had a harmful impact on its native ecosystems.
Second, the toads could be captured and destroyed by volunteers. Cane toads can easily be caught in simple traps and can even be captured by hand. Young toads and cane toad eggs are even easier to gather and destroy, since they are restricted to the water. If the Australian government were to organize a campaign among Australian citizens to join forces to destroy the toads, the collective effort might stop the toad from spreading.
Third, researchers are developing a disease-causing virus to control the cane toad populations. This virus will be specially designed: although it will be able to infect a number of reptile and amphibian species, it will not harm most of the infected species; it will specifically harm only the cane toads. The virus will control the population of cane toads by preventing them from maturing and reproducing.
Both the reading and lecture discuss impacts of cane toad on indigenous animals of Australia which is ecofriendly. The former argues that there are numerous methods to control the dispersion of cane toad and provides three possible reasons to support to doing so, but latter challenges each of these points.
First of all, the author of the passage asserts that building national fencing is appropriate measures to control cane toad. However, the professor in lecture contends that this method will not work because the river and steams carry egg and young tadpole through stream and river to another side of fences. Fences might sometimes block the young toad, but not eggs.
Secondly, according to the passage, the expert opined that by organizing the campaign among the Australian civilian as volunteers, and trapping the cane toad is efficacy is best way to eradicate the cane toad. In contrast, the lecture objects this idea. She supports her argument by presenting the example of untrained volunteers, who could obviously eradicate the native toad. As young native toad is usually baffled with cane toad, and unskilled volunteers will kill endangered indigenous one.
Finally, the passage claims that by emerging disease-causing virus can control the maturing and reproduction of cane toad. Nevertheless, like two suggestions before, the professor in her lecture proclaims that this recommendation is not feasible because virus would affect the cane toad of South America as it is exotic to Australia, but native to South America. Reptiles and amphibian often transported to America by pet keepers and Scientist. Thus, it will transfer the virus to south America.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 171, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[4]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'is the best'.
Suggestion: is the best
... and trapping the cane toad is efficacy is best way to eradicate the cane toad. In cont...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, thus, in contrast, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1416.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 265.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34339622642 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03470204552 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71586979368 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569811320755 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 433.8 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.9347771731 49.2860985944 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.923076923 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3846153846 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.46153846154 7.06452816374 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.263708857635 0.272083759551 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0934847549709 0.0996497079465 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0596445389964 0.0662205650399 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154366292396 0.162205337803 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0603072688998 0.0443174109184 136% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.45 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.