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
The lecturer refutes all three claims in the reading, about the measures to stop the spread of American Cane toads in Australia. According to the reading, this amphibian species is introduced to Australia by the farmers to destroy pests that eventually became a threat to native ecosystems. However, the professor presents a counter-argument for each assertion.
First, the reading posits that the surge of cane toads can be prevented by building a national fence. One of the flaws of this idea is the natural habitat of young toads and eggs are rivers and small waterways. Even though a good barrier is made, the leaking ways for the spread of these toads are much higher. So according to the professor, this is unlikely to be effective.
Secondly, the author of the reading suggests that a group of volunteers can capture these toads easily by simple traps or gathering and destroying the eggs of the cane toad. The professor challenges this specific argument by stating that untrained volunteers may probably destroy the native frog species that is even more harmful to society. In addition, it is very difficult to distinguish between a young cane toad and a native frog. This phenomenon worsens the problem even more.
Moreover, the reading explains that introducing a specific virus to kill cane toad will be effective as it may infect only these amphibians. But, the professor disagrees with this idea because this can cause terrible consequences even in Central and South America as these toads are transported to the United States as pets. The cane toads that are infected with these viruses can devastate the native cane toad population leads to its extinction.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1406.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 277.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07581227437 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07962216107 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70900564217 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530685920578 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 434.7 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.2988733354 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.428571429 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7857142857 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.21428571429 7.06452816374 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.257612118725 0.272083759551 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0896323723387 0.0996497079465 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.062115956396 0.0662205650399 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161622165817 0.162205337803 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0447346875811 0.0443174109184 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.