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.
Both, the reading and the lecture, talk about some measurements to control the presence of an species of frog introduced by the human in Australia in 1935, with the goal of protecting their crops from insects. The reading proposes some measurement that could be helpful, whereas the professor has a counter opinion about them. During the lecture, she refutes each reason presented, casting doubts in the author's beliefs.
Firstly, the reading points out that to create a national fence could be useful to avoid the colonization of areas that free of this animal. However, the professor disproves this idea, stating that young members of this specie and the eggs use to live in rivers and streams where a fence do not have any effect. those eggs and young frogs could readily pass from one side to the other without problems through the water, with which this method of control is ineffective.
Secondly, the reading suggests to create groups of volunteers, which could hunt and kill those frogs, controlling the specie's development. Nonetheless, the lecturer disproves this argument noticing that, even when this idea could reach some success, people without experience could eliminate native species of frog too, which could cause a huge damage. Moreover, this issue could see it incremented by the fact that the young frogs are no easy to identify by not professional people.
Finally, the reading says that scientists could devise a virus that affect the cane toad populations, by preventing their reproduction. Notwithstanding, the orator highlights the weakness of this point, noticing that it could provoke an ecological disaster in those areas where that species come from. The virus could escape out of the Australian’s border due to animals are usually transported by scientists and pet collectors. As a result, frog populations in those places could suffer a remarkable reduction, resulting in a negative impact those ecosystems.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 92, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...measurements to control the presence of an species of frog introduced by the human...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ing doubts in the authors beliefs. Firstly, the reading points out that to ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 241, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
...ung members of this specie and the eggs use to live in rivers and streams where a f...
^^^
Line 9, column 313, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Those
...s where a fence do not have any effect. those eggs and young frogs could readily pass...
^^^^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... method of control is ineffective. Secondly, the reading suggests to create...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 23, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'suggests creating'.
Suggestion: suggests creating
...tive. Secondly, the reading suggests to create groups of volunteers, which could hunt ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 340, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'huge damage'.
Suggestion: huge damage
... species of frog too, which could cause a huge damage. Moreover, this issue could see it incr...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 21, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...entify by not professional people. Finally, the reading says that scientist...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, whereas, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1667.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 311.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36012861736 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19942759058 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80182970347 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.572347266881 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 490.5 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.9347570942 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.230769231 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9230769231 21.698381199 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.92307692308 7.06452816374 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 4.19205298013 191% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.07820815758 0.272083759551 29% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0298071486377 0.0996497079465 30% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0499922437581 0.0662205650399 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0517438726309 0.162205337803 32% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0351612604465 0.0443174109184 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.