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 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 population. This virus will be specially designed: although it will be able to infect a number of reptile and amphibian species, it will not hard 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 states that Australian farmers to protect farmers' crops by eating harmful insects used the cane toad which is a large amphibian and native to the south and central America. However, in this amphibian, the rate of reproduction is high and now the toad populations are considered a threat for Australian native animals that are not pests. scientists have introduced a couple of methods to avoid the spread of cane toad in Australia. However, the lecturer finds all the idea dubious and presents some evidence to refute them all.
First, the author argues that building a national fence is one way to prevent their extension, and this fence will avoid them from moving to the area that they have not colonized yet. Conversely, the professor brings up the idea that some of toads' eggs and off springs are in lakes and rivers and they can move from one area to others by water flow.
Furthermore, the reading asserts that some volunteers, especially Australian citizens, can help and the toad can capture by them. In contrast, the lecturer underlies that some volunteers are untrained and they may damage the native animals of Australia.
Finally, the researchers are designing a new type of virus to control the toad populations and especially it will be harmful just for cane toad. On the contrary, the professor dismisses this issue due to the fact that sone of Australian animals are used for research and are bought by scientist and pet shopper and are brought to the United State of America. This may results that the virus transfers to the native toad in the central and north America and devastates them which are vital in these areas.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-01-11 | Umme Abiha | 81 | view |
| 2022-12-27 | YAGUT | 78 | view |
| 2022-12-27 | YAGUT | 83 | view |
| 2022-12-26 | YAGUT | 78 | view |
| 2022-08-31 | Ibne Arabi | 83 | view |
- In 1938 an archaeologist in Iraq acquired a set of clay jars that had been excavated two years earlier by villagers constructing a railroad line The vessels were about 2 200 years old Each clay jar contained a copper cylinder surrounding an iron rod The a 85
- 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 3
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement young people do not give enough time for helping in their societies 73
- In the United States it had been common practice since the late 1960s not to suppress natural forest fires The let it burn policy assumed that forest fires would burn themselves out quickly without causing much damage However in the summer of 1988 forest 70
- 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 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 350, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Scientists
...lian native animals that are not pests. scientists have introduced a couple of methods to ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 234, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'some of', you should use 'the' ('some of the toads') or simply say ''some toads''.
Suggestion: some of the toads; some toads
..., the professor brings up the idea that some of toads eggs and off springs are in lakes and r...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, finally, first, furthermore, however, may, so, in contrast, 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: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 7.30242825607 233% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1374.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 282.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87234042553 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53705499663 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507092198582 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
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: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.7994875073 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.909090909 110.228320801 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6363636364 21.698381199 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.90909090909 7.06452816374 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.3589403974 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.