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.
TPO48IntegratedTask-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 author is of the opinion that because of environmental issues, the major part of frog’s population have been dismantled and presents three reasons with suggested solutions for solving this problems. On the other hand, the professor states that these reasons and solutions are actually not convincing and practical. She refutes each of the reasons.
First, the reading claims that chemical components that using in agricultural disease preventing caused the decrease in frog’s population and proposed that use of these components should be banned. However, the speaker says that this solution is not fair and economic because it not competitive in the market.
Second, the article states that the fungus creates harmful effects on frog’s skin thickness and brings them die of moister and water shortage. Then asserts that scientists find remedies against these bad affects and it should be extensively utilized on frogs as a preventing method. Conversely, the lecturer contends that these new treatments are should use individually to each frog in each generation repeatedly. By this reason it is expensive and complicated method and will not work effieciently.
Third, the author mentions that natural ecosystem of frogs are almost consist of water but because of overuse of water resources by human, these ecosystems are exhausted of water. So, the frog’s habitats are diminished and if these locations were protected from human harmful activities, the problem will be solved. On the contrary, the professor asserts that these solution will not save the frogs due to the fact that the water shortage was consequent of global warming not human usage. With this in mind, preventing rules cannot stop this phenomena.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 194, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ns with suggested solutions for solving this problems. On the other hand, the profes...
^^^^
Line 7, column 71, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'consisted'.
Suggestion: consisted
...t natural ecosystem of frogs are almost consist of water but because of overuse of wate...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 366, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this solution' or 'these solutions'?
Suggestion: this solution; these solutions
...he contrary, the professor asserts that these solution will not save the frogs due to the fact...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 543, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...s in mind, preventing rules cannot stop this phenomena.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, conversely, first, however, if, second, so, then, third, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1479.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 271.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.45756457565 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78726052436 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.568265682657 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 448.2 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.899306893 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.769230769 110.228320801 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8461538462 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.15384615385 7.06452816374 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.160355648878 0.272083759551 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0509710121369 0.0996497079465 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0448732337605 0.0662205650399 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0957831879741 0.162205337803 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0279987753256 0.0443174109184 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.3589403974 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 53.8541721854 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.39 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.7 8.42419426049 115% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 63.6247240618 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => 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.