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 article states that the golden frog is an endangered species, because of a fungus infection which leads to the frogs dying of disease. The passage goes on to introduce three approaches for the protection and recovery of the golden frog population. However, the professor explains that the suggestions introduced by the passage are ineffective.
First, the reading claims that by introducing a type of bacterium to the skin of the frogs the golden frogs can be protected from the fungus infection. The professor refutes this point, explaining that the bacteria only releases the chemical effective against the fungus at the start of it's colonization. Hence, this solution is temporary and would not last in the long run.
Second, the article posits that the frog population can be recovered by breeding frogs in captivity and releasing the healthy frogs in the wild. But the professor explains that the released frogs won't stay healthy for long due to contact with animals carrying the fungus infection. So, the golden frogs will get infected again due to contact with other animals in the wild.
Third, the reading points out that some frogs have developed a natural defense against the fungus by raising their body tempreture and if this natural ability spreads the frogs population may recover. However, the professor opposes this idea pointing out that frogs expend a considerable amount of energy to rais their body temprature leading them to become weak and unhealthy. Hence they might die of other causes and the population wont rise.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 172, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...and if this natural ability spreads the frogs population may recover. However, the pr...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 378, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ding them to become weak and unhealthy. Hence they might die of other causes and the ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, if, may, second, so, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1295.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 253.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1185770751 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98822939669 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59043796575 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 136.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.537549407115 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 394.2 419.366225166 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.8423978529 49.2860985944 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.916666667 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0833333333 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 7.06452816374 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.283061290346 0.272083759551 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110487662077 0.0996497079465 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0929637810596 0.0662205650399 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.183826363774 0.162205337803 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0488767311069 0.0443174109184 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.3589403974 99% => 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: 12.42 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.