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 the author and the lecturer discuss possible measures for preventing frog population decline. The passage claims that several methods exist to solve the problem of frog population drop. The professor, on the other hand, completely reject whatever mentioned in the reading through citing three reasons.
First, both the author and the professor talk about using pesticides. According to the passage, if laws inhibit the farmers from using pesticides near sensitive frog population, it would reduce the harm pesticides cause to frogs. The lecturer, nevertheless, rejects the author's view and illustrates the idea that farmer who have to obey strict regulations will be faced to economic problems. preventing farmers from using pesticides near endangered frog population decrease farmers' yields and they lost a big part of their harvest.
Second of all, both the reading and the lecturer discuss application of antifungal. The author argues that antifungal medication and treatments kill the fungus that are detrimental for frog population. However, the professor refutes this, saying that antifungal medication should be injected to each frog's body, so it is not possible to capture each frog for applying this treatment. Moreover, fungus reproduce new generations all the time. Therefore, this project is very expensive.
Eventually, the passage and the lecturer address the subject of frogs' habitat protection. The passage goes on to mention that if water habitat were protected better from human excessive water use and development, many frog species would recover. In contrast, the professor points out that global warming gives rise to the disappearance of water habitats and wetlands and forbidding human from using water resources could not recover water habitat.
All in all, the author maintains that there are several ways to protect frog population from extinction, while the professor not only completely cast doubt on, but she also demonstrates that these solutions have several disadvantages and repercussion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Both
both the author and the lecturer discuss pos...
^^^^
Line 5, column 393, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Preventing
...ons will be faced to economic problems. preventing farmers from using pesticides near enda...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, while, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 5.01324503311 299% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1739.0 1373.03311258 127% => OK
No of words: 308.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.6461038961 5.08290768461 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79585046294 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 145.348785872 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581168831169 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 525.6 419.366225166 125% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.9021501742 49.2860985944 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.6875 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.25 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.1875 7.06452816374 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.154361696813 0.272083759551 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.050011257324 0.0996497079465 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0449650471757 0.0662205650399 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0864537872286 0.162205337803 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0225107707339 0.0443174109184 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.3589403974 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.49 12.2367328918 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.19 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 63.6247240618 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.