frog
The author of the reading states 3 solutions for the declining frog population. The lecturer challenges these statements made by the author. She is of the opinion that none of them is true.
In the first place, the author suggests that pesticides used by farmers to control pests on their farms are harmful to frogs and a specific law should hinder the farmers from utilizing them. This statement is challenged by the lecturer. She says that in this way framers might loss more crops and as a result they will have lower efficiency. So it is not economically doable.
Secondly, the writer contends that skin fungus is another factor can affect frogs negatively since this fungus makes frog's skin thicker. Due to this reason, some antifungal treatment should use to eliminate fungus. The lecturer, on the other hand, rebuts this by asserting that frog treatments have high costs, given that frogs should individually treat. Also, the next generation of frogs should treat since they will have the same problem.
Finally, this is stated in the article that human activities like using water from their habitat and depleting the water from wetlands for development should be not permitted since frogs lay their eggs in wetlands. The lecturer, however, posits that by mentioning that more than human activities, global warming is the cause of drying wetlands
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 344, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... warming is the cause of drying wetlands
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, as a result, in the first place, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1146.0 1373.03311258 83% => OK
No of words: 224.0 270.72406181 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.11607142857 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86867284054 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49974488494 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.611607142857 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 336.6 419.366225166 80% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.7658742212 49.2860985944 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.1538461538 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2307692308 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.61538461538 7.06452816374 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.322043601106 0.272083759551 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.107916872564 0.0996497079465 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.129023749362 0.0662205650399 195% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.183543264067 0.162205337803 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.110824874566 0.0443174109184 250% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.12 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.13 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.