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 passage and lecture have conflicting opinions about the approaches to solve the decline in the frog population. The article strongly postulates that there are various methods that would solve frog population problems. On the other hand, the listening adamantly delinates that none of the methods offer a practical and effective solution.
First and foremost, according to the author of the excerpt, farmers would have been used pesticides to protect and preserve their crops from insects damage. However, these chemicals would have harmed frogs nervous system. Therefore, the government should prohibit farmers from using pesticides near frogs habitats. Nonetheless, the lecture offsets these points by declaring that decreasing the use of pesticides wouldn't be economically practical. In other words, if farmers that their farmland is beside frog habitats didn't use these chemical substances, they will lose a lot of crops. As a result, they will not be able to compete with other farmers.
On top of this, the professor in lectuer further points out that using the new treatment have many flaws. Meaning that this treatment have to be applied for earch frog. Also,this treament don't pass to the next generation. Therefore, this solution will be much expensive and complex. These claims refute the writer implication of how using antifungal medication that would kill the fungus will protects frog population.
The article lastly asserts that preserving water habitat such as lacks would help to recover some frogs species owing to the fact that frogs lay their eggs in water. Furthermore, humans are threat to frog habitat becaused they have been using water and wetland habitat for development. The speaker in lecture counters these points by insisting that protecting lacks and wetlands wouldn't save frogs because the real threat is global warming. Moreover, global warming affect lacks and make it dry
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 413, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...g that decreasing the use of pesticides wouldnt be economically practical. In other wor...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 519, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... their farmland is beside frog habitats didnt use these chemical substances, they wil...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 174, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , this
... have to be applied for earch frog. Also,this treament dont pass to the next generati...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 189, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...lied for earch frog. Also,this treament dont pass to the next generation. Therefore,...
^^^^
Line 5, column 394, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'protect'
Suggestion: protect
...ication that would kill the fungus will protects frog population. The article lastly...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 100, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...uch as lacks would help to recover some frogs species owing to the fact that frogs la...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 381, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...ting that protecting lacks and wetlands wouldnt save frogs because the real threat is g...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, moreover, nonetheless, so, therefore, such as, as a result, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1629.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 301.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41196013289 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55945946877 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.584717607973 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 483.3 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.1307333354 49.2860985944 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.5 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7222222222 21.698381199 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.77777777778 7.06452816374 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.212540194452 0.272083759551 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0678855192668 0.0996497079465 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0580752932017 0.0662205650399 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128562662928 0.162205337803 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00856836158556 0.0443174109184 19% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.8 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.1 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 63.6247240618 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.