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 the lecture are about frogs. The author provides three possible solutions to save the frog populations from becoming extinct. However, the lecturer challenges all the points made by the author and says that none of the methods offer a practical solution to save the frogs. The professor elaborates on her points hereunder.
Firstly, she mentions that a serious decrease in pesticides is not economically practical or fair, because farmers depend on pesticides for their triumph yield of crops. Moreover, to decrease the use of pesticides farmers have to follow the strict regulations which are expensive, in order to save their crops from harmful insects. Thus, this method will not outweigh the benefits.
Secondly, the reading posits that by application of antifungal medication to all the frogs will benefit from being extinct, as they are vulnerable to the fungal infections. On the other hand, the tutor implies that treatment must be done to each and every frog to prevent fungal infections. she also adds the point that this method is complicated and also expensive as they need to target each frog. Moreover, treating every single frog will not prevent from being passing the infections to their offsprings.
Finally, the academician says that enormous activities of humans by consuming more water and saving wetlands will not save frog populations as they are more threatened to global warming. In addition to that global warming is creating a huge threat to the frog's population because of climatic change where frogs are dessicate to live. In other words, this is causing entire frog species to become extinct.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 292, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
...very frog to prevent fungal infections. she also adds the point that this method is...
^^^
Line 8, column 256, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...arming is creating a huge threat to the frogs population because of climatic change w...
^^^^^
Line 8, column 316, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: ''.
...ause of climatic change where frogs are dessicate to live. In other words, this is causin...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus, in addition, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1388.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 265.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23773584906 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03470204552 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64315312742 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547169811321 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 420.3 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.4163603041 49.2860985944 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.1428571429 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9285714286 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.14285714286 7.06452816374 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.193934959125 0.272083759551 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0629240577198 0.0996497079465 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0527381754079 0.0662205650399 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107363821408 0.162205337803 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0416947578841 0.0443174109184 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.