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 and lecture are both about the protection strategies of the golden frogs from the fungal infection. While the reading provides three different remedial measures for this problem, the lecturer refutes each of them and claims that those were not effective.
To begin with, the reading says that fungal problems can be controlled by using the bacteria; these produce a chemical that kills the fungi. Additionally, it says that scientists were planned to introduce a colony of bacteria to the body of the golden frog. However, the lecturer challenges the claim made by the author. He points out that although bacterial introduction would work for a brief amount of time, it does not sustain for a long period. He elaborated on it that this practice would be temporary due to the stop of bacterial colonization on a later period.
On the same note, the author says that the breeding of frogs in captivity reduces the fungal problems. It illustrates that after the breeding process it would be left to its initial habitat, and as a result, it would produce a fungal-free offspring. The professor, on the other hand, argues that although a frog releases from captivity would be disease-free, it would soon get infected after keeping in contact with other wild-population in its habitat. He clarifies that other populations previously present in a wild condition is infected. Consequently, this solution does not work.
Finally, the writer posits that with the help of a natural defense mechanism, rising body temperature, it can fight with the fungal pathogens, which finally solve the problems. On the contrary, the listening passage contends that with the increase in body temperature, it would expend more amount of energy. According to it," when there is a loss of energy from the body, it would become weak and susceptible to the diseases".
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 323, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...d more amount of energy. According to it,' when there is a loss of energy from th...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, however, if, so, while, as a result, on the contrary, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 22.412803532 152% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1559.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 305.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11147540984 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86952872591 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544262295082 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 479.7 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 3.25607064018 399% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.4324175718 49.2860985944 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.933333333 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3333333333 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.26666666667 7.06452816374 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0838979935812 0.272083759551 31% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0306542478152 0.0996497079465 31% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0455277877302 0.0662205650399 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0511867099818 0.162205337803 32% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0274642194608 0.0443174109184 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.08 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.