golden frog
Both the reading and the lecture are talking about a critical problem that the golden frogs face. While the author in the passage introduces a few methods in which scientists can protect the frogs, in the lecture professor begs to differ. She states the solutions are not as effective as it has been claimed.
In the beginning, the reading mentions a type of bacterium, which can get attached to the frogs' skin to prevent infection. However, the professor refutes this idea. She believes the method is ephemeral and won't last long. She mentioned that the chemical released by the bacterium would remain on the skin in the early days, and after a certain period, it will lose its effectiveness. Eventually, the fungus can infect the golden frog.
Furthermore, opposite to what the author suggested, the professor notes that the idea of breeding the golden frogs in captivity can not be successful. She states that leaving the captivated frogs in an environment that the frogs had been dead won't help to preserve the frog's population. She points out that the other animals who are living on the habitant might carry the fungus. Consequently, they can get new frogs infected.
Moreover, the author says there is a natural defense mechanism by which the frogs can protect themselves without human intervention. The frogs can increase their body temperature in order to slow down the activities of the fungus. However, the professor casts doubt on this method by noting that this technique may be useful, but for that reason, the frogs need to consume a considerable amount of energy. As a result, this process will make frogs fragile and prone to diseases and eventually might lead to their death.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 269, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...had been dead wont help to preserve the frogs population. She points out that the oth...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, so, while, talking about, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1412.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 285.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95438596491 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64358431144 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550877192982 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 428.4 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.625891507 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.25 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8125 21.698381199 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0625 7.06452816374 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.379496240248 0.272083759551 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.129237049859 0.0996497079465 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.135931656716 0.0662205650399 205% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.238171371184 0.162205337803 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0838970277372 0.0443174109184 189% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 13.3589403974 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.13 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.