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 passage is discussing three methods to stop the further spread of cane toad in Australia. The lecturer, on the other hand, believes that none of the mentioned tactics is successful and might cause environmental catastrophes in the long run.
First, although a fence was effective to stop rabbits from spreading in the beginning of the twentieth century, this method would not stop cane toad from spreading. This is due to the fact that young toads and eggs are typically found in rivers and streams, and they could be easily carried on the other side. This fact shows that constructing a national fence would be unlikely to stop cane toads from spreading.
Second, even though cane toads can be easily captured and destroyed by volunteers, other species might be destroyed as well. This is because native frogs, who live alongside with cane toads look similar. Thus, volunteers won’t have the ability to distinguish between them, and end up killing native frogs instead of cane toads. This could cause detrimental effect to the environment.
Finally, it is true that researchers have developed a virus that will harm specifically the cane toads by preventing them from growing and reproducing, but it will infect other reptiles who usually are transferred to Central and South America. These reptiles will transmit the virus to the cane toads in both locations where native cane toads live. This solution is not feasible because it would disrupt the eco-system there.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 390, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... detrimental effect to the environment. Finally, it is true that researchers hav...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, look, second, so, thus, well, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => 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: 1257.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 242.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19421487603 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94415379849 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64106164479 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.570247933884 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 369.0 419.366225166 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 8.23620309051 24% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.1141582304 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.75 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1666666667 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => 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 : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.238151251399 0.272083759551 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0889928240534 0.0996497079465 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0577530353813 0.0662205650399 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140294916247 0.162205337803 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0432555995255 0.0443174109184 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 13.3589403974 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.