According to the reading passage, it is stated that there are some solutions to protect golden frogs from getting sick by fungal diseases. However, the professor in the listening says why the remedies mentioned in the reading passage were incorrect and refutes them by describing three reasons as follows.
First of all, the reading claims that a bacterium is a natural enemy of the fungus, and this bacteria can be introduced to the frogs’ skin to protect them from fungal diseases. On the other hand, the professor casts doubt on this point by saying that this solution would be temporary because of the fact that these protective bacterias produce the chemicals that attack the fungus just at certain times. They have those chemicals early in their colonization on the frogs’ skin and stop making them after that. Consequently, that would not be a long-lasting solution.
Secondly, the article argues that frogs can be bred in captivity to be protected from the fungus that causes their disease, and then they can be released in habitats where wild golden frogs have died. In contrast, the lecturer says that new populations cannot stay healthy because other species of animals carry the same disease as dead frogs. Hence, new frogs bred in captivity would get infected from other wild animals if they were released in old habitats.
Finally, the reading says that some golden frogs have a natural defense to fight against fungus. They can increase their body temperature and make fungus grow slower, and it would pave the way for the frog population to grow. The professor opposes this idea by explaining that frogs need to use a lot of energy to heat up their body. As a result, it would weaken them, and they would get ill or die sooner than before. Therefore, this natural defense is unlikely to recover their population.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 89, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...m is a natural enemy of the fungus, and this bacteria can be introduced to the frogs...
^^^^
Line 3, column 285, Rule ID: BECAUSE_OF_THE_FACT_THAT[1]
Message: This phrase is redundant. Use simply 'because'.
Suggestion: because
...g that this solution would be temporary because of the fact that these protective bacterias produce the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, first, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, in contrast, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 22.412803532 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1536.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95483870968 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45152801211 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.541935483871 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 466.2 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.2779449811 49.2860985944 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.714285714 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1428571429 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.4285714286 7.06452816374 148% => 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 : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.176966725804 0.272083759551 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0664663254245 0.0996497079465 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.050460330785 0.0662205650399 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111989241037 0.162205337803 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0291528537191 0.0443174109184 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.43 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25 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.