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 states that there are three possible solutions, proposed by conservationists, which can help golden frogs from infection of fungus. The lecture, however, finds the idea dubious and casts doubt on the reasons proposed by the reading passage.
The author argues that by using a certain type of bacteria which settles on the skin of frogs, it can be good option to preserve frog from infection. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that, although the chemical which are released by bacterium can protect frogs from fungus, it is temporary and bacterium will not continue to produce that chemicals, which reults in stopping the protection.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that reproducing frogs in captivity and then realising them into habitats can increase the number of healthy frogs in their population. On the contrary, the professor underlines the fact that, these frogs will not going to stay healthty, because they may contact with other wild animals that are infected by the fungus, as a result, they can get infected in this situation and this method cannot be practical to survive them.
Finally, the reading states that frogs have an intrinsic ability by which, in the case of infection, they increase their body temperature and reduce the fungus growth speed. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that the procedure of increasing temperature needs a large amount of energy which the frog has to provide. In consequence, providing an inordinate amount of energy makes frogs weak, so they are more likely to get ill and be infected by fungus.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, 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.
...asons proposed by the reading passage. The author argues that by using a certain t...
^^^
Line 3, column 262, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'go'
Suggestion: go
...nes the fact that, these frogs will not going to stay healthty, because they may cont...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, finally, furthermore, however, may, so, then, as to, in contrast, as a result, 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: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1349.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 265.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09056603774 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03470204552 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65413693359 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569811320755 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 409.5 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 29.0 21.2450331126 137% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 54.1438413447 49.2860985944 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.888888889 110.228320801 136% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.4444444444 21.698381199 136% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.7777777778 7.06452816374 167% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.202690179257 0.272083759551 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0916751307784 0.0996497079465 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0421326295366 0.0662205650399 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125484356563 0.162205337803 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0215796508479 0.0443174109184 49% => 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: 17.3 13.3589403974 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.5 53.8541721854 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.07 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.498013245 130% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.