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 author of the reading passage feels that the declining trend of from population from the environment would be mitigated by three different kinds of practices that suit them. The lecturer challenged on it by claiming that each of the strategies is not practical, and refutes each of the authors' reasons.
To begin with, the reading says that by not spraying pesticides near the from the region would make able to survive them. The use of harmful chemicals deteriorates the nervous system and finally leads to breathing problems. However, the speaker argues that reducing pesticides would not be economically practical in the case of farmers'. She also elaborated that this technique would have a severe disadvantage to the crops, and finally, farmers' have to lose a huge amount of crops, and they would be in loss.
Similarly, the reading explains that due to the growth of fungus, the thickening of the skin would occur. As a result, it would cause problems with dehydration. To prevent it use of antifungal is a must. The lecturer contradicts it by saying that the use of antifungal to each individual frog by capturing it is not possible. Although it would prevent the mother from the frog, the same problem arises to the offspring. Thus, it would have to apply again and it brings more complications.
Finally, the author posits that preventing the natural habitat like lakes and marshes helps to maintain the frog population. On the contrary, the professor opposes it by saying that although it is a good idea, it is not a bigger threat to the frog. According to the Professor, the real problem of the decline is global warming, which cause decrease in habitat and finally leads to extinction.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 74, Rule ID: FROM_FORM[3]
Message: Did you mean 'form'?
Suggestion: form
...hat by not spraying pesticides near the from the region would make able to survive t...
^^^^
Line 3, column 175, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'uses'?
Suggestion: uses
...roblems with dehydration. To prevent it use of antifungal is a must. The lecturer c...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, similarly, so, thus, as a result, on the contrary, to begin with
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 : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 30.3222958057 152% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1418.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 288.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92361111111 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73916742724 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506944444444 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 429.3 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.5881583758 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.5333333333 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.13333333333 7.06452816374 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.10440563237 0.272083759551 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0326118191576 0.0996497079465 33% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0285176215603 0.0662205650399 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0637985156673 0.162205337803 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0198508328144 0.0443174109184 45% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.8 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.