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 reading is on the various ways to stop the diffusion of Cane toad in Australia. It provides three supporting details in order to buttress its proposition. However, the professor says the approach will rather fall in abyss. She refutes each of the reading stance.
First, the passage states national fence will prevent Cane toad population spreading. The lecturer denies this position. She explains, those fence making will not stop the dissemination of Cane toad because young toads are found in the stream. The water system will allow to reach the Cane toad on the other side of the fence more easily.
Second, the reading claims the volunteer will capture the toad and destroy them. But, the professor refutes this claim. She says, these untrained volunteer will not able to identify the difference between Cane toad and native frog. And they will rather destroy native frog population.
Third, the passage asserts disease causing virus will curb the Cane toad spreading. The idea is quite immature and incoherent with the lecturer. The professor elaborates the possible spreading of virus. She says, when the virus is going to introduce in the forest, it will also lapsed with others animals. And, when the pet will export to America, virus will go to there and harm the Native American Can toad. This approach would bring possible ecological disaster.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 273, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'reaching'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'allow' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: reaching
...the stream. The water system will allow to reach the Cane toad on the other side of the ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 279, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'lapse'
Suggestion: lapse
...o introduce in the forest, it will also lapsed with others animals. And, when the pet ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, so, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 12.0772626932 17% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1147.0 1373.03311258 84% => OK
No of words: 224.0 270.72406181 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12053571429 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86867284054 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.37757899046 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 125.0 145.348785872 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.558035714286 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 345.6 419.366225166 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 12.0 21.2450331126 56% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 25.2919374261 49.2860985944 51% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 63.7222222222 110.228320801 58% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 12.4444444444 21.698381199 57% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 2.66666666667 7.06452816374 38% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
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: 0.180668703869 0.272083759551 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0578988511194 0.0996497079465 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0516739501478 0.0662205650399 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112489655307 0.162205337803 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0277963699161 0.0443174109184 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.9 13.3589403974 67% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 67.76 53.8541721854 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.8 11.0289183223 62% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.53 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.97 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 63.6247240618 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 6.8 10.498013245 65% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 11.2008830022 62% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.