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 proposes three solutions to reduce the speed of the frog population decline. In contrast, the professor asserts that none of the writer's suggestion is practical and mentions some problems with those solutions.
First, the lecturer points out that banning farmers from useing fungicides in farms is not practical and fair. She states that if farmers in the environment in which frogs habitat were banned to use fungicids, their yield will be decreased which is not fair compare to other farmers. Strict regulations will damage farmers and cause losing more crops and decreas yield of crop, the professor avers. Wiht this explanation the lecturer directly rebuts the writer's idea which banning farmer from useing pesticide is a good solution to decrease frog's declineing population.
Second, the professor posits that treating all individuals of contaminated frog in large scale is not practical. This needs to catch and treat them individually, which is impractical. In addition, this approach will not stop transfering the fungal contamination through the frogs' offsprings. As we see, the author's suggestion about using the antifungal treatment for frog to help them survive does not hold water.
Third, the professor agrees in principal with the writer's opinion about controlling the water usage from lake and other water resources, but the author's suggestion to prohibit farmers to use water from lakes and rivers is not helpful for frogs. She mentions that the root reasons of this threat for frog natural habitat is global warming and climate changes. She posits that global warming. She explains that efven with new regualtion about water usage from lakes, the water decline in the frogs habitat will remain unsolved. This justification will repudiates the writer's proposal to save the frogs' habitat and their population.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 142, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
... the professor asserts that none of the writers suggestion is practical and mentions so...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s some problems with those solutions. First, the lecturer points out that bann...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 461, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...nation the lecturer directly rebuts the writers idea which banning farmer from useing p...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... decrease frogs declineing population. Second, the professor posits that treati...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 314, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...gh the frogs offsprings. As we see, the authors suggestion about using the antifungal t...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...elp them survive does not hold water. Third, the professor agrees in principal...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 34, Rule ID: IN_PRINCIPAL[1]
Message: Did you mean 'in principle' (=as a rule)?
Suggestion: in principle
...ter. Third, the professor agrees in principal with the writers opinion about controll...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 56, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
... professor agrees in principal with the writers opinion about controlling the water usa...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 151, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...lake and other water resources, but the authors suggestion to prohibit farmers to use w...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 397, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...hanges. She posits that global warming. She explains that efven with new regualtion...
^^^
Line 4, column 496, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...ge from lakes, the water decline in the frogs habitat will remain unsolved. This just...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 556, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'repudiate'
Suggestion: repudiate
...emain unsolved. This justification will repudiates the writers proposal to save the frogs ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 571, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
... This justification will repudiates the writers proposal to save the frogs habitat and ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 600, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...diates the writers proposal to save the frogs habitat and their population.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, second, so, third, in addition, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 5.01324503311 279% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1552.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 290.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35172413793 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12666770723 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63675655621 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544827586207 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 456.3 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.9351325413 49.2860985944 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.466666667 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3333333333 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.93333333333 7.06452816374 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 14.0 4.19205298013 334% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.14117370809 0.272083759551 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0515268706995 0.0996497079465 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0385175816609 0.0662205650399 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0850204938058 0.162205337803 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.019063308676 0.0443174109184 43% => 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: 13.4 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: 13.75 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.