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.
In the reading materials, the author expresses three methods to solve the problem of declining frog populations. However, the professor holds that the author's theories are questionable.
First of all, the passage claims that the solution is to establish laws to prohibit the use of pesticides while the speaker contends that it is a bad idea. This policy will cause the dropping of the agricultural economy and unfairly harming the farmers. Also, compare with the farms in other areas, the strict regulation will make the farms losing crops and cannot compete with others.
Secondly, the passage contends that the fungus will make the skin of the frog be thicken, so the solution is to kill the fungus on large scale. However, the speaker argues that it is difficult to protect every species of frogs individually. To be specific, it requires capturing and treating each individual frog in a population. Moreover, the treatments do not prevent the frogs from passing the fungus on to their offspring, so the treatments would have to be applied repeatedly on their offspring. Therefore, utilizing these treatments would be incredibly complicated and expensive.
Finally, the passage claims that natural habits are threatened and people should better protect the key water field. Yet, the speaker proposes that water use and development are not the biggest threats to water and wetland habitats. Obviously, the real threat is global warming. In recent decades, global warming has contributed to the disappearance of many water and wetland habitats, causing entire species to go extinct. Prohibiting humans from using water or building near frog habitats is unlikely to prevent the ongoing habitat changes caused by global warming. As a result, all the solutions propose by the reading passage are impractical.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 354, Rule ID: MANY_FEW_UNCOUNTABLE[2]
Message: Use 'much' or 'little' with uncountable nouns.
Suggestion: much; little
...has contributed to the disappearance of many water and wetland habitats, causing ent...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1529.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 288.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30902777778 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75404575784 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565972222222 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 462.6 419.366225166 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.194914426 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.5625 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.1875 7.06452816374 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.129103228518 0.272083759551 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0365382896637 0.0996497079465 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0425981427888 0.0662205650399 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0655989647233 0.162205337803 40% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0431666460789 0.0443174109184 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
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: 13.22 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.57 8.42419426049 114% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 63.6247240618 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => 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.