the reduction in frog species and solutions
The passage is providing some solutions regarding to solve the problem of reduction in frog population through human activities. However, the professor believes that none of these offer protective and practical solution, and refutes each of the reasons of support by defining their drawbacks.
To commerce, the passage claims that pesticides, which is a chemical material to prevent the harmful insects from damaging crops, is used widely by human and has harmed frogs roughly. There for, some strike laws should be adopted to prohibit the use of these chemical. In contrast, the professor states that preventing farmer from using these chemical material bring about sever disadvantages to them, like: low yield or losing crops. Hence, she rejects this solution by mentioning the problems that can be created regarded to farmers.
Secondly, the author intrigues fungus as one of the major factors involving decline in frog population. The passage asserts that fungus causes thickness of the skin, as a result, frogs will demise because of dehydration. Moreover, it introduces antifungal that removes fungus by heat and will protect frogs. In contrary, the speaker believes that not only should it be applied to every individual frog but also the offspring should be treated. As a matter of fact, that should be a pretty complex task, let alone the expenses that it imposes.
Finally, as the passage states natural habitats of frogs have been threatened by human activities. Most frog species lay eggs in water and because of the excessive water exploit and draining these habitats are in danger. Consequently, it suggests that these natural habitats should be preserved against massive water usage. However, the lecturer introduces the global warming of earth as the major factor of water disappearance and she is of the opinion that human activity is not the biggest threat in this case.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... support by defining their drawbacks. To commerce, the passage claims that pes...
^^^^
Line 5, column 408, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...about sever disadvantages to them, like: low yield or losing crops. Hence, she re...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, hence, however, if, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, in contrast, as a matter of fact, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1604.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 303.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29372937294 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64059403878 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.574257425743 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 494.1 419.366225166 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.7524320111 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.933333333 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.46666666667 7.06452816374 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.197943488395 0.272083759551 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0587526833844 0.0996497079465 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0750662494005 0.0662205650399 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109030400206 0.162205337803 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0442860960284 0.0443174109184 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.3589403974 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.58 8.42419426049 114% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 63.6247240618 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => 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.