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 passage considers three different approaches to resolve the issue of frogs' declining numbers. However, the lecturer calls the solutions inefficient, pointing out that none of the methods are practical.
The first problem pointed out in the passage is the effects of pesticides on frog species. The solution given is for the government to prohibit the use of pesticides in areas with frog populations. The lecturer argues against this, pointing out that by doing so, the farmers in areas restricting the usage of pesticides will have a more challenging time raising their crops. Their fields will have fewer yields than their competitors in other areas not affected by the regulations. Hence, this action is unfair and economically disadvantageous to farmers in such areas.
The second solution given by the author is to treat the fungus affecting frogs' survivability. The lecturer renounces this idea mentioning that the treatment for this disease has to be done on each frog individually, making it a very unpractical and challenging endeavor. Concurrently, the frogs may pass this disease onto their off-springs, constantly leading to the need for treatment.
In the third solution, the protection of frogs' habitats which includes wetlands, is taken into consideration. The author points toward human activities as the reason for this crisis and calls for the development of plots near frog habitats to stop. Nonetheless, the lecturer disagrees with this point and explains that global warming is the main reason for the disappearance of wetlands, and halting human developments near such areas wouldn't have much of an impact on the issues.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 198, 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.
...ticides in areas with frog populations. The lecturer argues against this, pointing ...
^^^
Line 4, column 436, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...ting human developments near such areas wouldnt have much of an impact on the issues.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, however, if, may, nonetheless, second, so, third, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1390.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 260.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34615384615 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98384208856 2.5805825403 116% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.561538461538 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 414.0 419.366225166 99% => 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: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.5870086679 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.923076923 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.30769230769 7.06452816374 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.189766121763 0.272083759551 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0705096715519 0.0996497079465 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0373272404363 0.0662205650399 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112262843117 0.162205337803 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.021803757226 0.0443174109184 49% => 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: 13.8 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.0 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => 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.