Question: Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific methods proposed in the reading passage.
In recent years, many frog species around the world have declined in numbers or even gone extinct due to changes in their environment. These population declines and extinctions have serious consequences for the ecosystems in which frogs live; for example, frogs help play a role in protecting humans by eating disease-carrying insects. Several methods have been proposed to solve the problem of declining frog populations.First, frogs are being harmed by pesticides, which are chemicals used to prevent insects from damaging farm crops such as corn and sugarcane. Pesticides often spread from farmland into neighboring frog habitats. Once pesticides enter a frog’s body, they attack the nervous system, leading to severe breathing problems. If laws prohibited the farmers from using harmful pesticides near sensitive frog populations, it would significantly reduce the harm pesticides cause to frogs.A second major factor in frog population decline is a fungus that has spread around the world with deadly effect. The fungus causes thickening of the skin, and since frogs use their skin to absorb water, infected frogs die of dehydration. Recently, researchers have discovered several ways to treat or prevent infection, including antifungal medication and treatments that kill the fungus with heat. Those treatments, if applied on a large scale, would protect sensitive frog populations from infection.Third, in a great many cases, frog populations are in decline simply because their natural habitats are threatened. Since most frog species lay their eggs in water, they are dependent on water and wetland habitats. Many such habitats are threatened by human activities, including excessive water use or the draining of wetlands to make them suitable for development. If key water habitats such as lakes and marshes were better protected from excessive water use and development, many frog species would recover..
The speaker and the author hold divergent attitude toward the three methods that have been proposed to solve the problem of declining frog populations. The writer puts forward that the frog population can be preserved by prohibiting the farmers from using harmful pesticides, treating frogs' infection caused by fungus, protecting frogs' water habitats by stopping the excessive water use of human. However, the professor presents his refutation in the lecture.
Firstly, it is said in the reading material that pesticides which contain chemical matters might attack the nervous system of frogs and lead to severe breathing problems. To rebut this idea, the lecture suggests that this solution is very economically impractical. If farmers who grow crops near the habitat of frogs cannot use chemical pesticides, they will be put into disadvantage compared to the farmers growing plants far away from the frogs, which is unfair to those farmers.
Secondly, even though the reading passage proposes that fungus causes thickening of the skin, and might make frogs die of dehydration, the professor maintains that the treatment of fungus have to be applied to every individual frog, which is very complicated and expensive. This treatment, in addition, cannot be still effective to frogs' offsprings, which means that this kind of treatment have to be taken to each new generation of frogs.
Thirdly, the author of the reading indicates that frogs are dependent on water and wetlands to lay their eggs, while these habitats are threatened by human activities like the excessive use of water. However, the lecturer contends that the excessive water usage is not the main threat to frogs' habitat, but is the global warming. The disappear of water and wetland cannot be changed without dealing with the issue of global warming. Thus, the assumption of the author is severely weakened.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 482, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...frogs, which is unfair to those farmers. Secondly, even though the reading passag...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 331, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ogs habitat, but is the global warming. The disappear of water and wetland cannot be changed ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, still, third, thirdly, thus, while, in addition, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1588.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 300.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29333333333 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65314069652 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.573333333333 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 477.0 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 21.2450331126 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 116.471044179 49.2860985944 236% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 144.363636364 110.228320801 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.2727272727 21.698381199 126% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.1818181818 7.06452816374 144% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.154059122549 0.272083759551 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0532930352895 0.0996497079465 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0419415249858 0.0662205650399 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0949930342852 0.162205337803 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0352497760771 0.0443174109184 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 13.3589403974 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 53.8541721854 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.71 8.42419426049 115% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 63.6247240618 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.498013245 122% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.