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 article states several measures to stop the spread of the cane toad population in Australia. This is because of the rapid multiplication of cane toads and being a threat to native animals that are not pests. The article provides three measures to stop the spread. However, the professor explains that these measures are ineffective and refutes each of the author’s reasons.
First, the reading claims that one of the methods to stop the spread of cane toads are using natural fences as it will block the passage of toads from one part of Australia to the other parts. They cite this reason from the past experience of the fences used for the successful spread of rabbits. However, the professor refutes this point by saying that, the fences won’t stop the spread of toads as many of them are present in streams and rivers and can be easily carried to the other side.
Second, the article posits that the toads could be destroyed and captured with the help of volunteers. The article cites this claim by saying that the cane toads can be easily caught in simple traps and in hands. However, the professor says that, although they might be able to capture the cane toads, many of the volunteers will be untrained and they won’t be able to distinguish cane toads with the native one. This can lead to the destruction of the native species of toads as well.
Third, the article says that a disease-causing virus can be an effective measure to stop the population of cane toads. Moreover, the virus will be specially designed, infecting only the cane toads. However, the professor opposes this point by saying that, most of the cane toads from Australia are transferred back to central and South America. So, it can be disastrous to the ecosystem over there contaminating the rest of the species over there.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 225, Rule ID: PAST_EXPERIENCE_MEMORY[1]
Message: Use simply 'experience'.
Suggestion: experience
...r parts. They cite this reason from the past experience of the fences used for the successful s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, moreover, second, so, third, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 30.3222958057 152% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1517.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 314.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.83121019108 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5310458212 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.442675159236 0.540411800872 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 458.1 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.0900089463 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.133333333 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9333333333 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.26666666667 7.06452816374 46% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.178150436047 0.272083759551 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0754587832795 0.0996497079465 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0604085599227 0.0662205650399 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122103909809 0.162205337803 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0268372066282 0.0443174109184 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.73 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.49 8.42419426049 89% => OK
difficult_words: 57.0 63.6247240618 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => 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.