The reading and lecture both discussed the problem of declination in generation of frogs. While the reading gives some reason and soluation for this catastrophy, the lecturer believes that the author did not give practical soluation for this problem and she supports her claims, which are elaborated in the preceding paraghraph.
First, the article accounts for the pesticides which are one of the major reason of this event. While the reading alleged that usage of pesticides should be reduce by farmers, the professor asserts that it is not a fair solution for farms. She supports her argument by indicating that farmers who reduce the usage of this matrials will have more damged crops and grains, while their rivals would not confornt such a problem. The lower the rate of crops, the more possibility of losing their jobs and sales.
Second, the author find fungs which are prevaling all over the world, another reason for declination of frogs. Also, the writer belives that by treatments and preventing infection, this factor can be removed. But, the professor states that this method is expensive and time consuming. She endorse her statement, by demonstarting how the mothde works. For this approach of solving, each individual of frogs should be treated; Moreover, preventing them from infection should be done again and agian in new generation. As can be inference, these two reason support the extent of which this approach is compilcated and costly.
Ultimately, the writing identify that flucation in environment is the other prime reason for the episode of reducation of frogs. On the other hand, the lecturer gives the idea that this cannot be the main reason owing to the fact that global warming is the actual reason of this happening. She claims that by prevting and restricting human activities nothing will be changed and still the problem will remain unsolved.
The reading and lecture both discussed the problem of declination in generation of frogs. While the reading gives some reason and soluation for this catastrophy, the lecturer believes that the author did not give practical soluation for this problem and she supports her claims, which are elaborated in the preceding paraghraph.
First, the article accounts for the pesticides which are one of the major reason of this event. While the reading alleged that usage of pesticides should be reduce by farmers, the professor asserts that it is not a fair solution for farms. She supports her argument by indicating that farmers who reduce the usage of this matrials will have more damged crops and grains, while their rivals would not confornt such a problem. The lower the rate of crops, the more possibility of losing their jobs and sales.
Second, the author find fungs which are prevaling all over the world, another reason for declination of frogs. Also, the writer belives that by treatments and preventing infection, this factor can be removed. But, the professor states that this method is expensive and time consuming. She endorse her statement, by demonstarting how the mothde works. For this approach of solving, each individual of frogs should be treated; Moreover, preventing them from infection should be done again and agian in new generation. As can be inference, these two reason support the extent of which this approach is compilcated and costly.
Ultimately, the writing identify that flucation in environment is the other prime reason for the episode of reducation of frogs. On the other hand, the lecturer gives the idea that this cannot be the main reason owing to the fact that global warming is the actual reason of this happening. She claims that by prevting and restricting human activities nothing will be changed and still the problem will remain unsolved.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 157, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'reduced'?
Suggestion: reduced
...eged that usage of pesticides should be reduce by farmers, the professor asserts that ...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 289, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'She' must be used with a third-person verb: 'endorses'.
Suggestion: endorses
...od is expensive and time consuming. She endorse her statement, by demonstarting how the...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 340, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'activities'' or 'activity's'?
Suggestion: activities'; activity's
... that by prevting and restricting human activities nothing will be changed and still the p...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, moreover, second, so, still, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 5.01324503311 299% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1576.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 308.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11688311688 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5906161342 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538961038961 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 475.2 419.366225166 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.409543784 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.066666667 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5333333333 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 7.06452816374 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => 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: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.48649204929 0.272083759551 179% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.14947587787 0.0996497079465 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.180638911969 0.0662205650399 273% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.341458939148 0.162205337803 211% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.294280638765 0.0443174109184 664% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.99 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.