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 passage explores the issue of the decline of frog populations, and several reasons are offered in support of this argument. Although the statement in the article seems plausible in the beginning, the lecturer casts doubts on it for the following reasons.
First of all, even though the reading passage suggests that if the use f pesticides prohibited, then the problem may be solved. However, the lecturer argues that this solution does not seem economic. In other words, there may be crop losses and other severe disadvantages due to the absence of pesticides. Therefore, the lecturer's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.
Secondly, the statement held by the writer claims that it is the fungus that causes frog depopulation. The fungus can cause the formation of thicker skin that leads to dehydration.
Conversely, the lecturer rejects the idea by bringing up a logical reason that it would be rather complicated and ineffective to capture and treat individually to each frog and their offspring.
Last but not least, the lecturer acutely identifies the weakness in the reading passage that if excessive water use is prevented, then the habitats of the frogs can be recovered. The lecturer convincingly points out that the major reason for the threatened environment is actually because of global warming instead of overuse of water.
In conclusion, based on the evidence presented above, it can be clearly seen that the stances on both sides are paradoxical. Though the contents in the reading passage seem reasonable, the lecturer disproves them by solid evidence.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 322, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lecturers'' or 'lecturer's'?
Suggestion: lecturers'; lecturer's
...e absence of pesticides. Therefore, the lecturers argument disproves its counterpart in t...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, conversely, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, in conclusion, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => 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: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1354.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 256.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2890625 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8625750536 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.578125 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 417.6 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.554733219 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.153846154 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6923076923 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.3076923077 7.06452816374 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.09492273731 147% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0910618104502 0.272083759551 33% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0303670577029 0.0996497079465 30% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0297702533312 0.0662205650399 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0476584424864 0.162205337803 29% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0335306537271 0.0443174109184 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.45 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.