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.
According to the given sets of materials, the author and the lecturer discuss possible solutions to save golden frogs from a fungal disease. The author of the reading states three ways to help golden frogs to survive. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article and presents a number of counterarguments in its rejection.
First of all, the author contends using bacterium-producing chemicals that kill these fungal cells, to save the frogs. On the other hand, the lecturer refutes this idea, asserting that these bacteria reveal these chemicals during colonization on the frog's skin and not after that. She continues that although these bacteriums' produced chemicals can kill the fungus, they are temporary Therefore, this is temporary and not effective.
Secondly, the reading states that researchers may keep a breed of these golden frogs in captivity and release them after the fungus is gone. That being said, the lecturer repudiates this discourse, mentioning that some other animals living in the habitat may carry the disease and newly protected golden frogs can get sick again. Moreover, she says that this disease is not leaving the habitat.
Finally, the author and the professor are at odds with another point. The author declares that the golden frog's natural defense system might overcome the fungus by heating up leading to slowing down the fungus's growth. Yet again, the professor rebuts this claim, explaining that this body temperature increase is high energy-consuming for golden frogs. Consequently, golden frogs may become weak. Furthermore, weak golden frogs are prone to get different illnesses and die as a subsequent of it.
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1411.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 267.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28464419476 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04229324003 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75509854085 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565543071161 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 425.7 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.6350105406 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.785714286 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0714285714 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0 7.06452816374 142% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.196580301129 0.272083759551 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0752903415209 0.0996497079465 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0593315448402 0.0662205650399 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122711051167 0.162205337803 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0418603054747 0.0443174109184 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.6 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => 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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1411.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 267.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28464419476 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04229324003 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75509854085 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565543071161 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 425.7 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.6350105406 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.785714286 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0714285714 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0 7.06452816374 142% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.196580301129 0.272083759551 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0752903415209 0.0996497079465 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0593315448402 0.0662205650399 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122711051167 0.162205337803 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0418603054747 0.0443174109184 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.6 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => 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.