The golden frog is a small bright-yellow amphibian that lives in and around mountain streams in Panama The species is severely endangered because of a fungus that infects the frog through its skin and inhibits the frog's critical life functions, such as breathing. Conservationists have proposed a few solutions to the golden frog's fungus problem.
Bacterial Protection
First, scientists have identified a natural enemy of the fungus: a type of bacterium. This bacterium produces a chemical that kills fungal cells. Scientists think that they may be able to introduce colonies of this bacterium to the skin of golden frogs. The bacterial colonies would then protect the frogs against the fungus infection
Breeding Frogs in Captivity
Second, researchers are considering the possibility of breeding golden frogs in captivity and then releasing them in the wild to replenish wild populations The golden frog can develop disease-free in captivity; where it is isolated from the fungus When golden frogs bred in captivity are released in habitats where wild golden frogs have died out, the frogs bred in captivity will give rise to a healthy, fungus-free population.
A Natural Defense
Third, it is possible that golden frogs w川 overcome the threat posed by the fungus without human intervention. Some golden frogs have what seems to be a natural defense against the fungus. When infected, they increase their body temperature, which slows down the growth of the fungus If this ability to resist the fungal infection spreads among the golden frog population as a whole, the frog population is likely to overcome the crisis and start increasing again.
The reading and listening material have a debate on how to protect the golden frog from fungus. The writer thinks there are three ways to solve the problem, nevertheless, the speaker argues that none of them are effective.
The writer claims that bacteria can be used to protect them, but the speaker views this issue from an opposite angle. According to her, this idea would not work, because the protection could not last for a long time. She advances the theory by saying that the bacteria does work, but it is temporary since when they colonies this to the skin of golden frogs, it will help the skin produce some chemical materials that protect them from the fungus. However, after a few times, the skin stops producing it, so they do not have protection again.
The author states that breeding frogs in captivity are another good way. However, the speaker opposes the writer's point and takes the view that in this way, the frogs bred in captivity will be infected eventually. Specifically, she indicates that when releasing those captivity-feed frogs in habitats, they still have a chance to access animals that already are infected, so frogs are easily infected, and they cannot stay in health at the end.
The reading argues that frogs will have a natural defense. By contrast, in accordance with the speaker, the writer's claim does not hold water because it has a big drawback. To explore further, she contends that heating the body requires a lot of energy, which will weaken frogs. As a result, they will get ill or dead of other causes. Therefore, in this way, golden frogs cannot be strong and healthy and may be quite difficult to recover from it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ues that none of them are effective. The writer claims that bacteria can be used...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, therefore, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1383.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 288.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80208333333 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.37643870897 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569444444444 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 415.8 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.4458800239 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.7857142857 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5714285714 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 7.06452816374 71% => 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: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.162189699083 0.272083759551 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0604376106836 0.0996497079465 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0507389202343 0.0662205650399 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105632932772 0.162205337803 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0302258335994 0.0443174109184 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 53.8541721854 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.56 12.2367328918 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.86 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.