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 reading and lecture are about three probable solutions about preventing the frogs from extincting or declining in amounts. In the reading, three method which may be applied effectively for saving the creature were proposed. The lecturer is opinion of these solutions are impractical.
Firstly, the author posits that governments should outlaw the use of pesticide in the farming area near which frogs survive because the chemical is deleterious to the frogs. Therefore, If farmers start following the ordinance against apply of insecticides, the damage of the chemical to the creature will be eliminated. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that this way is economically unjust and ineffective because strict regulation will occasion relentless drawback to the peasants who work close to habitat of the frogs. Thereby, their productivity will significantly decrease, and lose advantage to compete with other farmers who live far-flung from the habitat, which precipitates the imbalance between workers on ranches.
Secondly, in the reading, it is stated that fungus is detrimental for frogs because it thickens skin, and make harder for the frog to breathe that absorbs oxygen with its skin. For this reason, if the chemical killing the fungus is utilized, the decrease will level off. The lecturer, nonetheless, refutes this idea by mentioning that the injection must be employed for frogs individually, thus conservationists or workers must catch and treat them one by one. Moreover, the chemical has not any relation between genetic code and heredity, which means it should be used for its offspring as well. Hence, this solution is arduous and likely to require magnitude of funding.
Finally, the author suggests that habitats of the frogs are imperiled, and should be maintained by prohibiting people to develop their building to the frogs' habitats. However, the lecturer claims that the danger caused by the individuals towards the habitat is not cardinal factor of its decline. The global warming is posing instrumental problem to its population. Therefore, retaining the water cannot limits the decline of the frogs.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, moreover, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1831.0 1373.03311258 133% => OK
No of words: 337.0 270.72406181 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.43323442136 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28457229495 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84658059273 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 145.348785872 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569732937685 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 565.2 419.366225166 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.5982755614 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.705882353 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8235294118 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.82352941176 7.06452816374 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => 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: 0.173773410485 0.272083759551 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0490111995789 0.0996497079465 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0451008993737 0.0662205650399 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10442326495 0.162205337803 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0392714667362 0.0443174109184 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.69 8.42419426049 115% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 63.6247240618 171% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.