Frogs population decline
The reading and listening are both about frog population decline. The author of reading believes that there are solutions to problem threatening frogs' population. However, the speakers effectively dismisses all solutions, highlighting the fact that none of them are practicable nor realistic.
First, the author asserts that pesticides are the cause for decline in frog population, citing their devastating effect on frogs' nerve which causes breath problems. However, the speaker believes that forcing farmers to use less pesticide is not economically fair. By doing so, they can not achieve as much as high yield as their counterparts and this is simply unfair to want them since they rely on their yield. In light of this explanation, the author's reasoning become limited.
Secondly, the author mentions the deadly fungus as reason for population decline of frogs since these fungus would thicken frogs' skin resulting in water absorbtion problem, leading to death by means of dehydration. The writer mentions some treatment for this illness. The orator, on the other hand, asserts that these treatments are expensive, citing the fact that these treatment should be done individually. To add, citing the fact that the treated frogs are not able to pass this gene to their offsprings, the professor believes that the treatment are also complicated because the treatment should be done periodically in order to be effective.
Finally, the penman suggests that human activity as another main cause and further discusses that the frogs' natural living environment should be saved such as marshes and wetlands. On the contrary, the speaker presents a hole in this argument by saying that the global warming is the main cause for the decline, which causes some species to go extinct. She further discusses that it is less likely that prohibiting human activities and providing frogs with new habitat would do so much difference.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 97, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this fungus' or 'these fungi', 'these funguses'?
Suggestion: this fungus; these fungi; these funguses
...n for population decline of frogs since these fungus would thicken frogs skin resulting in w...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 366, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this treatment' or 'these treatments'?
Suggestion: this treatment; these treatments
...nts are expensive, citing the fact that these treatment should be done individually. To add, ci...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, such as, on the contrary, 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: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 5.01324503311 279% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1638.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 306.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35294117647 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70737384299 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552287581699 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 484.2 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.7279617848 49.2860985944 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.0 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8571428571 21.698381199 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.14285714286 7.06452816374 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => 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: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.253136905261 0.272083759551 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0839142030408 0.0996497079465 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.111467903874 0.0662205650399 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14593705952 0.162205337803 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0494922194029 0.0443174109184 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.3589403974 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.