The passage introduces three methods to prevent flog's population decline. However, the professor believes that none of the proposed methods could effectively solve this problem and provides reasons to oppose each of the aforementioned methods. The professor's arguments against the passage are as follows.
First, the passage states that using pesticides in agriculture might be a potential threat for frogs which live in the vicinity of farmlands, and in order to eliminate this thread the usage of pesticides should be restricted. The professor, however, believes this is neither a practical nor a fair option for the farmers. According to her, if those farmers who are cultivating crops in areas which the frogs' population is in danger cannot use pesticides, they will encounter financial failure and yield reduction since they will not be able to compete in the market. Therefore, applying restrict rules for using pesticides could not be practical.
Second, the author suggests that anti fungal treatments could solve fungal related problems and help frogs against population decline. On the other hand, the professor refuses with this idea. Since anti fungal treatment should be applied separately for each individual frog to be effective, it is practically and economically impossible. Besides that, this treatment should be followed for each generation to prevent fungal spread to offspring. Therefore, due to the difficulty of the individual treatment process in large scale, this method could not be helpful.
Finally, the article notes that managing water resources such as lakes and marshlands and reducing human's activity might help to preserve natural habitats of frogs and consequently help them recover their population. The professor, however, repudiates this statement as well. As she mentions, global warming is mostly responsible for the disappearance of many water resources and human's activities and use of water supplies play a minor role in comparison to that. Thus, using less water by humans will not eliminate the role of global warming and do not help to preserve water resources and frog's habitats. Therefore, this could not be considered as an effective method for preventing population decline in frogs.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 403, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...re cultivating crops in areas which the frogs population is in danger cannot use pest...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, consequently, finally, first, however, if, second, so, therefore, thus, well, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1897.0 1373.03311258 138% => OK
No of words: 346.0 270.72406181 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.48265895954 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83228883923 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 145.348785872 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.528901734104 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 589.5 419.366225166 141% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.7202033693 49.2860985944 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.588235294 110.228320801 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3529411765 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.64705882353 7.06452816374 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.307348855242 0.272083759551 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0931175479108 0.0996497079465 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0708787512951 0.0662205650399 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.174286223327 0.162205337803 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0924965045052 0.0443174109184 209% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 53.8541721854 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.5 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.65 8.42419426049 115% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 63.6247240618 173% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.