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.
It is studied that recently there has been the decline of the frog populations as their environments change. While in the reading passage, three methods is proposed by the author to help protect frogs, each of them has its flaws as the lecturer points out.
Firstly, the author suggests that stricter laws should be enacted to protect frog habitat from pesticide pollution. As those habitats sometimes may locate near the farmlands, the frogs in contact with the pollutants may have severe breathing problems as their nervous systems are attacked. However, the lecturer claims that if this method is adopted, the farmers who are confined to this law will have disadvantage in competing with others. Thus, it is concluded by the lecturer a not economic method to put into practice.
Next, the reading proposes that the antifungal medication and treatment is needed to kill the fungus that will make frogs dehydrated when infected, In the contrary, the lecturer holds the negative idea about this medication for two reasons. To begin with, the process is complicated since this could only apply to each individual, which makes it even harder for capturing and treatment. Moreover, the medication would not be able to be past down. Thus, the treatment needs to be applies over and over again to each generation. In conclusion, the lecturer thinks this method is practical.
Lastly, the author suggests that the habitat of frogs, like the lakes and marshes, should be protected from excessive water use and development. In the other hand, the lecturer argues that the main threats to their habitat is not water exploitation, but global warming. Thus, the effect would be limited by the protection of their habitat. Instead, the lecturer thinks this decline of frog population by global warming is unlikely to change.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 486, Rule ID: ECONOMIC_ECONOMICAL[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economical' (=affordable, cheap)?
Suggestion: economical
..., it is concluded by the lecturer a not economic method to put into practice. Next, t...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, so, thus, while, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => 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: 1525.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 297.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13468013468 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61526229402 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552188552189 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 455.4 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.23620309051 170% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.4041723433 49.2860985944 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.666666667 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.8 7.06452816374 96% => 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 : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.140348396538 0.272083759551 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0516653830959 0.0996497079465 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0714109593041 0.0662205650399 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.091915110849 0.162205337803 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0290769464661 0.0443174109184 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.89 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => 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.