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
Both lecture and reading are about the possible solutions that might protect the golden frogs from a fungus. The author of the reading feels that there are three possible ways to prevent the infection. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. She believes that none of the solutions will be effective.
To begin with, the author argues that using bacterium might save the frogs against infection. The article mentions that there is a specific type of bacterium which can kill fungus by releasing chemicals. The lecturer challenges this specific argument. She claims that bacterium is a temporary solution. She elaborates on this by pointing out that bacterium produces chemicals in the early stage of colonization on the golden frog skin and stops after a while.
Secondly, the writer suggests that the second possible solution is raising frogs in captivity. In the article, it is said that captivity will allow them to rise in a healthy environment. The lecturer, however, refutes this by mentioning that after rising frogs in captivity, they will be released into habitats. Additionally, she says that in the habitats, the new frogs are going to contact infected frogs.
Finally, the author posits that natural defense is a possible solution to prevent infection. Moreover, in the article, it is stated that increasing the body temperature would stop fungus growth. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that this method would use a lot of energy, which is a big drawback. She notes that consuming energy would weaken the immunity system in the golden frogs.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, while, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1328.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 257.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1673151751 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00390054096 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65035105258 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 136.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.529182879377 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 406.8 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.0296517944 49.2860985944 55% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 78.1176470588 110.228320801 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.1176470588 21.698381199 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11764705882 7.06452816374 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 4.33554083885 254% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.138522687069 0.272083759551 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0429635626001 0.0996497079465 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0510865827917 0.0662205650399 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0840470074224 0.162205337803 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0391961475986 0.0443174109184 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.5 13.3589403974 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 53.8541721854 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.11 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.