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.
Both listening lecture and reading passage are discussing the possible solutions to slow down declining in numbers of frog species. However, what is stated in the passage contradicts what is said in the lecture. The lecturer provides three firm points to support her opinion.
First, while pesticides may harm the frog habitats, the lecturer states that it is not practical and economical to do so. If law prohibits the farmers from using pesticides, it is not fair to the farmers since they will lose more crops and thus be under severe disadvantages when competing to other farmers.
Also, although the reading suggests the anti-fungal medication can protect sensitive frog populations from infection, the lecturer it is a complicated and expensive method. To be more specific, she explains that the treatment needs to conduct on each frog individually and the effect will not automatically inherent to their offsprings.
The third point involves protecting water habitats from excessive water use. The statement held by the reading states that by doing so, many species would recover. In contrast, the lecture points out that global warming is in fact the biggest threat of water habitats. Therefore, by simply constraining excessive water use is not likely to prevent the extinction of frogs.
In conclusion, based on the reasons provided, the lecturer refutes the points made in the reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tically inherent to their offsprings. The third point involves protecting wate...
^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ly to prevent the extinction of frogs. In conclusion, based on the reasons prov...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, may, so, therefore, third, thus, while, in conclusion, in contrast, in fact
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 : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1188.0 1373.03311258 87% => OK
No of words: 223.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32735426009 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86434787811 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81048244233 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.627802690583 0.540411800872 116% => OK
syllable_count: 358.2 419.366225166 85% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.3633035016 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.0 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5833333333 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.41666666667 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0950092928801 0.272083759551 35% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0325416292521 0.0996497079465 33% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0368063345201 0.0662205650399 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0450858662356 0.162205337803 28% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.03037917342 0.0443174109184 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.63 8.42419426049 114% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.