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 professor disagrees with the notion in the text about three methods to resolve the problem of reducing frog populations. She brings several explanations to support her idea.
First, the lecturer specifies that prohibiting farmers from using pesticide will not be a fair plan because some farmers may lose great deal of their crops. On the other hand, the farmers who they can use pesticides may have many crops in comparison with other farmers. In contrast, the reading claims that by inhibiting farmers from using pesticides we will be able to increase the populations of frogs because pesticides are harmful for frogs.
Second, the speaker states that treatments is not a good method since we should treat each frog individually. Hence, that would be a difficult proposal. Besides, the professor says that we should treat the next generation of frogs again because by treatment we are not able to treat offspring and the infection may transfer to the next generation. However, according to the passage, by treatments we can prevent infection. Therefore, we are able to improve the frog populations.
Finally, the instructor hints that humans do not have any impacts on the wetland habitat of frogs . As a matter of fact, the global warming has negative effects on the wetland habitat and it may caused to extinct of entire species on the wetland. In addition, we are not able to protect the change that happened by global warming in the wetland. On the other hand, according to the reading, humans activities led to the reduction of frogs populations because human activities destroyed habitat of frogs. Besides, the author of the text believes that we can recover the frogs by protecting the lake with excessive water.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 98, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
... impacts on the wetland habitat of frogs . As a matter of fact, the global warming...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, second, so, therefore, in addition, in contrast, as a matter of fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1448.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 286.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06293706294 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68756104585 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520979020979 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 441.0 419.366225166 105% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.3303758412 49.2860985944 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.5333333333 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0666666667 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.13333333333 7.06452816374 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.13256559201 0.272083759551 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0438811721389 0.0996497079465 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0310428347243 0.0662205650399 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.070821824469 0.162205337803 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0303738658071 0.0443174109184 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.