The cane toad is a large (1.8kg) 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 load 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 specially harm only the cane toads. The virus will control the population of cane toads by preventing them from maturing and reproducing.
The reading and the lecture are both about cane toads, which harm greatly to small native animals of Australia. The author of the reading feels some strategies may solve this problem. However, the lecturer challanges the claims made by the author. She is of the opinion that these methods are not efficient.
To begin with, the author argues proved method on rabbits previously, which is building national fence will prevent colonization of cane toads in the area where they have not moved there yet. This specific claims is challanged by the lecturer. She claims that the eggs and younger toads could have spread with flow of river to a lot of region still. Therefore, this method does not prevent colonizing of them to new areas.
Secondly, the writer suggests that huge number of toads could be easily declined by volunteers. Because trapping and capturing of them is not difficult. The lecturer, however, robuts it byy mentioning if untrained people try to destroy them, they could damage to other native animals mistakenly, as well. That is why, even massive amount of people may decrease total number of cane toads, this could result dangerous consequences for other species.
Finally, the author posits that disease-causing virus generated for cane toads specificly, could cause extincion of them by inhibiting their maturation and reproduction processes. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that this method end up destruction of all cane toads, which is one part of ecological system. After extinction, this would effect all system subsequently.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 327, Rule ID: A_LOT_OF_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun region seems to be countable; consider using: 'a lot of regions'.
Suggestion: a lot of regions
...could have spread with flow of river to a lot of region still. Therefore, this method does not ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 50, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the writer suggests that huge number of toads could be easily declined by volunt...
^^
Line 3, column 113, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...declined by volunteers. Because trapping and capturing of them is not difficult. ...
^^
Line 3, column 237, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...oning if untrained people try to destroy them, they could damage to other native ...
^^
Line 4, column 343, Rule ID: AFFECT_EFFECT[6]
Message: Did you mean 'affect'?
Suggestion: affect
...al system. After extinction, this would effect all system subsequently.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, well, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1310.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21912350598 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.674532586 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.613545816733 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 395.1 419.366225166 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.2605297755 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.3333333333 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7333333333 21.698381199 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.93333333333 7.06452816374 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.112050113683 0.272083759551 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0341599701762 0.0996497079465 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0372230122529 0.0662205650399 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.067240934486 0.162205337803 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0138366779355 0.0443174109184 31% => 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: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.7 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
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.