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 and the lecture are both about methods to prevent and solve the problem of declining frog populations. While the author of the article argues that there are threevalid methods to prevent frogs extinction, the lecturer disputes the claims mentioned in the article. His position is that those methods are not practical solution for the decline in frogs population.
According to the article, one of the main causes of the decline is pesticides that applied by farmers to prevent insects from damaging their corps. The article mentions that prohibiting the farmers from using them will reduce the harm to frogs. This argument is challanged by the lecturer. He claims that this solution is not fair or practicall economically. He points out that this will be a sever disadvantage for farmers who are close to frogs populations. It will cause a crop loss and a decrease in their farms yield.
Second, the author suggests that fungal infection treatment is a good way to prevent frogs decline, since one of the maindecline is the skin infection of frogs. The author notes that if the treatment applied on a large scale, it would protect frog populations from infection. However, the lecturer opposes that. He says that this treatment has to be applied individually, and it is very difficult to capture each infected frog. He goes on to say that even if the treatment applied individually, tha will not prevent the infection from spreading o frogs' offspring.
Finally, the author puts forth the idea that protecting water habitats from excessive water use and development, the frogs decline will be prevented. In contrast, the lecturer states that the threat of the habitat is not mainly because of the excessive water use. It is due to global warming, which is unlikely to be prevented by prohibition of excessive water use.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 441, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'frog'.
Suggestion: frog
...sadvantage for farmers who are close to frogs populations. It will cause a crop loss ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 421, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... very difficult to capture each infected frog. He goes on to say that even if the...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, however, if, second, so, while, as to, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 5.01324503311 319% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1529.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 305.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0131147541 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74727100673 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495081967213 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 467.1 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.7536453951 49.2860985944 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.9411764706 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9411764706 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.47058823529 7.06452816374 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 4.45695364238 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.145604871256 0.272083759551 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0499883852136 0.0996497079465 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0450677324039 0.0662205650399 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0911760138102 0.162205337803 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0339598186395 0.0443174109184 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.3589403974 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.48 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.