The passage proposes three main solutions to the problem of uncontrolled spread of the cane toad species in Australia, whereas the professor in the lecture casts doubt on the effectiveness of these methods. She argues that these proposals would lead to unsuccessful attempts or unwanted damages to the ecosystem.
First of all, the writer proposes to build a national fence in order to prevent the distribution of the toads to new places where they have not reached yet. On the contrary, the lecturer disputes the performance of this idea by referring to the point that young toads and toad eggs can reach the entire area through rivers and streams which are spread across the whole country.
Furthermore, the professor refutes the argument in the reading that a public campaign to kill these species would results in a successful and regulated declination in the number of toads exclusively. According to the professor, untrained individuals might mistakenly cause severe damages to the population of native frogs in Australia, and consequently, not only wouldn't such campaigns benefit the ecosystem, but it might have devastating influences as well.
Finally, the professor alleges that utilizing a virus to diminish the number of toads may have grave implications for the native toads in central America and disrupt the natural equilibrium. This statement contradicts that part of the passage, according to which, a specially designed virus for toads, will not harm other species and ecosystems in general. The lecturer also illustrates that it is probable that some of these animals are transported to central America, to where they are indigenous, due to research purposes. Therefore, this theory might lead to a terrible disaster in the environment, in which toads are vital elements.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 115, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'result'
Suggestion: result
...ic campaign to kill these species would results in a successful and regulated declinati...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 364, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...n Australia, and consequently, not only wouldnt such campaigns benefit the ecosystem, b...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, furthermore, may, so, therefore, well, whereas, in general, first of all, on the contrary
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: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1515.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 285.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31578947368 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89988059741 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.571929824561 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 468.0 419.366225166 112% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 44.8370382608 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 151.5 110.228320801 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.5 21.698381199 131% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.0 7.06452816374 184% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.199956251786 0.272083759551 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0732524935609 0.0996497079465 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0759161485153 0.0662205650399 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117210468474 0.162205337803 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0555647902435 0.0443174109184 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.9 13.3589403974 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 53.8541721854 80% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.96 8.42419426049 118% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 63.6247240618 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.