The reading and the lecture are both about the golden frog that is under threat because of a fungus that affects the frog's crucial life functions. More specifically, in regard to the passage, the writer presents three theories about how to preserve these frogs. The lecturer disputes the claims made in the article. His position is that these solutions are not effective and will not protect the frog population.
First and foremost, the author of the reading states there is a type of bacterium that can work against the fungus by killing its cells. The article mentions that establishing colonies of the bacterium on the frog's skin can solve the issue. This argument is challenged by the lecturer. He claims that this solution will not work because the effect of the bacterium did not last for a long time. Additionally, he points out that these chemicals attack fungus at the beginning of the colony then they stop protecting the frogs.
Secondly, the author suggests breeding the frogs in captivity and then emitting them in the wild which helps to make frogs lack diseases. In the article, it is said that the new population will be healthy and free from this disease. Again, the professor specifically addresses this point when he states the new frogs will not stay healthy because the other animals in the wild have the same disease. He goes on to say that this method will not work at all.
Finally, the author brings his argument to a close by suggesting that frogs have self-defense against this fungus by raising their temperature which decreases the fungus growth. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes issue with this claim by contending that this method has big cons for the frogs because it use a lot of energy from the frogs which weakens them. He notes that this way may protect the frogs from these plants, but will affect their health.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 306, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'uses'?
Suggestion: uses
...d has big cons for the frogs because it use a lot of energy from the frogs which we...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, in regard to
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 : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 22.412803532 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1538.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 319.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82131661442 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43701729003 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510971786834 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 454.5 419.366225166 108% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.9949977894 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.125 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9375 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.375 7.06452816374 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => 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: 0.200149348604 0.272083759551 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.069905672344 0.0996497079465 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0715670851928 0.0662205650399 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134168969383 0.162205337803 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0374614217671 0.0443174109184 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 53.8541721854 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 11.0289183223 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.2367328918 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.75 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.