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 reading passage proposes three potential solutions for the problem of declining in the number of frogs, which could lead to their extinction. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the proposals made in the article. The speaker believes that the plans are not practical and will not slow down the decline.
First of all, the author contends that legislating laws to prevent farmers from using pesticides near the frogs' habitats could help resolve this issue. Nevertheless, the lecturer challenges this point by saying that this would be economically and practically unfair. According to the listening, this would render the farmland owners less competitive as they rely on the pesticides to protect the crops against damage. Furthermore, the speaker mentions that stricter regulations would put them in severe disadvantage as they might lose their crops or at least get lower yields than their competitors.
Secondly, the writer assumes that antifungal medication could be utilized to protect the frog population by guarding against dehydration caused by the fungus' thickening of the frog's skin. Conversely, the professor brings up the fact that this drug needs to be applied on each individual frog by capturing and treating each of them. As a result, this would end up very costly and inconvenient. In addition, the lecturer mentions that the treatment is not passed to the offspring. Thus, it would be required to be applied on each generation, which makes this solution preposterous.
Lastly, the excerpt claims that the habitats for these species should be preserved. According to the reading, humans should be prohibited from the excessive use of water from wetlands and marshes. Nonetheless, the lecturer points out that the real cause for habitat destruction is global warming, not human activity and limiting water use from wetlands by individuals is unlikely to have a positive outcome.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 309, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...cal and will not slow down the decline. First of all, the author contends that l...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, thus, at least, in addition, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1616.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 301.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36877076412 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80903247729 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.58803986711 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 471.6 419.366225166 112% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.9269089891 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.733333333 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0666666667 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.4 7.06452816374 147% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.123223834466 0.272083759551 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.037936464375 0.0996497079465 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.04867203198 0.0662205650399 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0732744647332 0.162205337803 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0268345349426 0.0443174109184 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.61 8.42419426049 114% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 63.6247240618 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27 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.