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.
Listening material
Based on the given materials, the article as well as the lecture discusses frogs population decline. The author prrposes several methods to counter this problem. The lecturer provides several ideas to repudiate these proposals.
Initially, it is alleged in the reading that pesticides affect frog's nervous system making it hard for them to breath so restricting farmers near frog's habbitats can help in this regard. However, the lecturer asserts that this not only this soulution is not economical but also is unfair. She alludes to the fact that farmers depend on pesticides to increase their yield and prohibiting them from using these chemicals is a huge disadvantage comparing to their rivals. So this soultion is not effective.
Second, the writer proclaims that a fungos is attacking frogs and cause them to suffer from skin problems which leads to their dehydration and death but there is a treatment for this problem to apply. Yet again, the speaker underscores that this medical treatment should be applied to frogs individualy which is not possible. The frogs should be captured in this process which is a problem and also the frogs can not pass the medicine to their springs so it should happen again and again for each generation of the frogs. This approach is not practical either.
The last point of contention between the listening and the reading passages is human activities and its impact on their natural habitat. The author states that wetlands are drained to provide land for development which consequently resulted in a decline to frogs' habitat. On the other hand, the author points out that humans are not the biggest threat comparing to the effect of global warming so as a result protecting wetlands would not have a significant impact. She mentions that prohibiting is not enough and we should think about a way to solve global warming instead.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, however, if, second, so, well, as to, as a result, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 22.412803532 152% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1576.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08387096774 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61002629352 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535483870968 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 468.0 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.048629679 49.2860985944 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.066666667 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6666666667 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.183364595535 0.272083759551 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0560839421667 0.0996497079465 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0584988072064 0.0662205650399 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101355391444 0.162205337803 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0288459514835 0.0443174109184 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.16 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 63.6247240618 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => 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.