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 this set of materials, the reading passage states that extinctions of frog populations have serious consequences for the ecosystems and provides several methods to solve the problem. However, the lecturer believes that none of those solution is practical and refute them all by offering several evidences.
First of all, it is mentioned in the article that frogs are being harmed by pesticides and the law must prohibit the farmers from using them. In contrast, the professor argues that the suggested plan is not economically fair because in the competitive market, farmers have to use pesticides to survive. Stricter regulations for farmers near frog habitats create serious disadvantages and they lose more crops. Therefore, this is not a convincing method to protect frogs.
Furthermore, the passage claims that a fungus has spread around the world and causes thickening of the frogs' skin which leads to death because of dehydration. A recent treatment can help frogs to survive. On the contrary, the lecturer contends that the antifungal treatment is impossible for large scales. Researcher must treat the frogs individually which means capture and treat frogs one by one which is not possible. On the other hand frogs do not transfer the treatment to offsprings and it is essential to repeat it again and again. Hence, the solution is too complicated and expensive.
Finally, the reading asserts that since human activities use excessive water and decreases proper habitats of frogs, government should pass a law to protect lakes and marshes. Conversely, the lecturer expresses that the most important reason of reduction of lakes are because of global warming, not human activities. In fact, even if regulations restrict farmers, it is unlikely to change the situation and recover the negative effect of global warming.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 231, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this solution' or 'those solutions'?
Suggestion: this solution; those solutions
...ver, the lecturer believes that none of those solution is practical and refute them all by off...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, so, therefore, in contrast, in fact, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1548.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 291.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31958762887 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13022058845 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82018595585 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.570446735395 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 475.2 419.366225166 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => 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: 41.4249522229 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.2 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.73333333333 7.06452816374 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.230422039054 0.272083759551 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0644312287207 0.0996497079465 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0724951939574 0.0662205650399 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123413423003 0.162205337803 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0685126723574 0.0443174109184 155% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.14 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.7273730684 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => 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.