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 solutions is practical so, 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 such as losing more crops and profit. 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 draining of wetlands. In fact, even if regulations restrict farmers, it is unlikely to change the situation and recover the negative effect of global warming.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, so, therefore, in contrast, in fact, such as, 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 : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1562.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 294.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31292517007 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81651548875 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581632653061 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 477.0 419.366225166 114% => 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: 41.3786847973 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.133333333 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.3333333333 7.06452816374 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => 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: 0.064133873378 0.0996497079465 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0722823700001 0.0662205650399 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122500426197 0.162205337803 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0675462479935 0.0443174109184 152% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 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: 13.52 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.31 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => 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: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.