The reading passage proposes three solutions to the golden frog’s fungus problems, which is however contradicted by the following lecture.
The first solution put forward by the reading is to use a type of bacterium that kills fungal cells. The lecture, by contrast, does not think this will work out. To specify, scientists have introduced those bacteria to frogs’ skin, yet found out that the positive effect did not last very long. This is because the bacteria only produce chemicals that attack fungus early in the colonization of frogs’ skin, but then stop producing it, which means this protection process is temporary.
Second, the reading suggests breeding golden frogs in captivity and then putting them back in the wild when wild golden frogs die out; in this way, those new disease-free golden frogs can then thrive healthily. On the contrary, the lecture points out the fact that even though those wild frogs with fungus may die out, other animals in the wild still carry the same fungus. Therefore, when those new frogs raised in captivity are released to the wild, they will soon get infected by those fungi and not stay healthy.
Last, the reading believes that golden frogs have a natural defense which is increasing their temperature to slow down the growth of fungus. This natural defense, nevertheless, according to the professor, has a big drawback. That is, it will use up a lot of energy from golden frogs, making them weak, ill, or even die from other diseases. In a word, it helps defend fungus at the price of being neither strong nor healthy, leaving the population of golden frogs hard to recover.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...contradicted by the following lecture. The first solution put forward by the re...
^^^
Line 3, column 102, 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.
...e of bacterium that kills fungal cells. The lecture, by contrast, does not think th...
^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... this protection process is temporary. Second, the reading suggests breeding go...
^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d by those fungi and not stay healthy. Last, the reading believes that golden f...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, still, then, therefore, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1365.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 275.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96363636364 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43029365977 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.596363636364 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 396.9 419.366225166 95% => 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: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
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: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.5305097701 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.75 110.228320801 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9166666667 21.698381199 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.91666666667 7.06452816374 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.229871231564 0.272083759551 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0829303234711 0.0996497079465 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.060627661197 0.0662205650399 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142434151581 0.162205337803 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0207695049797 0.0443174109184 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 66.07 53.8541721854 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.89 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => 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.