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 infec
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.
In the reading part, the author mentions that there are several ways to protect some specious of frogs which are near extinction. In the listening part, the speaker challenges what the the author states and rebuts the reasons, citing that the presented solutions are not practical.
To begin with, as mentioned in the article, the author sets forth that some kind of pesticides that are used by farmenrs are dangerious for frogs, and farmers should change the pesticisdes or do not use a plenty of them. In the listening part, nevertheless, the speaker flatly contadicts the idea and contends that it is not economically fair or even practical to ask farmers use other materials, since the other pesticides are expensive. Moreover, the farmers are compating to sell their products, and with strict rules, they just lose lots of money.
Second, the author points out that scientist produce a new kind of medicien to do not allow fungus damage the vulnarable frogs. In the listening part, nonetheless, the lecturer refutes the idea claiming that this solution has two disadvantages. First, schitists should use the drog for each individual frog, which in the large scale is not reasonable. In addition, the drog cannot pass to next generation; therefore, they should use it for each frog in the long time. it seems that the solution is too expensive.
Finally, the author claims that with protecting the natural environment of frogs' habbitat, we can rescue them. In contrast, the professor is of the opinion that the problem is not for destroying their natrul habitat. The actual problem is because of the global warming. since we cannot preseve frogs form the demerits of global warming, and we cannot control their extinction
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 182, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...ening part, the speaker challenges what the the author states and rebuts the reasons, c...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 182, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...ening part, the speaker challenges what the the author states and rebuts the reasons, c...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 469, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: It
... use it for each frog in the long time. it seems that the solution is too expensiv...
^^
Line 7, column 271, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Since
...oblem is because of the global warming. since we cannot preseve frogs form the demeri...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, moreover, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, therefore, in addition, in contrast, kind of, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1449.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 286.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06643356643 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65816374874 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538461538462 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 432.0 419.366225166 103% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 2.5761589404 349% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.577702289 49.2860985944 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.5 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4285714286 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.21428571429 7.06452816374 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.134937290261 0.272083759551 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0444987484518 0.0996497079465 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0424811240217 0.0662205650399 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0777833671455 0.162205337803 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.034409628697 0.0443174109184 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => 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.