Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on specific points made in the reading passage.
The cane toad is a large (1.8 kg) amphibian species native to Central and South America. It was deliberately introduced to Australia in 1935 with the expectation that it would protect farmers’ crops by eating harmful insects. Unfortunately, the toad multiplied rapidly, and a large cane toad population now threatens small native animals that are not pests. Several measures have been proposed to stop the spread of the cane toad in Australia.
One way to prevent the spread of the toad would be to build a national fence. A fence that blocks the advance of the toads will prevent them from moving into those parts of Australia that they have not yet colonized. This approach has been used before: a national fence was erected in the early part of the twentieth century to prevent the spread of rabbits, another animal species that was introduced in Australia from abroad and had a harmful impact on its native ecosystems.
Second, the toads could be captured and destroyed by volunteers. Cane toads can easily be caught in simple traps and can even be captured by hand. Young toads and cane toad eggs are even easier to gather and destroy, since they are restricted to the water. If the Australian government were to organize a campaign among Australian citizens to join forces to destroy the toads, the collective effort might stop the toad from spreading.
Third, researchers are developing a disease-causing virus to control the cane toad populations. This virus will be specially designed: although it will be able to infect a number of reptile and amphibian species, it will not harm most of the infected species; it will specifically harm only the cane toads. The virus will control the population of cane toads by preventing them from maturing and reproducing.
The reading and the lecture are both about how to stop the spread of cane toad in Australia. Whereas the author of the reading states that the spread of cane toads can be stopped or reduced using some ways, the lecturer suggests that those ways would either be unsuccessful or will affect other native species as well. The lecturer casts doubt on the main points made in the reading by opposing each of the three measures suggested by the reading.
First of all, the reading suggests that cane toads can be thwarted from spreading by building a National fence. However, the lecturer disputes this point by saying that this idea has flaws in it. Owing to the fact that cane toads can live in water, the lecturer mentions that a national fence won't be helpful as the water would be flowing through different parts of the country carrying cane toads in it.
Secondly, according to the reading, large groups of volunteers should be allotted the work of capturing and destroying the toads. This is because cane toads are easily catchable using simple traps and even hands. Nevertheless, the lecturer believes that this could adversely affect other native species as well. She mentions that due to the inexperience of the volunteers, native frogs could be destroyed instead of cane toads as it is quite difficult to differentiate between them atleast for the volunteers.
Finally, the reading states that a disease-causing virus can be used to control the populations of cane toad. On the other hand, the lecturer believes that this could affect the populations of cane toad in North and Central America where cane toads are native species. She says that the reptiles and amphibians, that are infected by the virus, could be transferred to America where this could affect the population of cane toads there.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 106, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... lecturer believes that these incidents dont happen so often. It has never occurred ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, third, well, whereas, in conclusion, 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: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1652.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 325.0 270.72406181 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08307692308 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24591054749 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58812216314 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495384615385 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 497.7 419.366225166 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.165537658 49.2860985944 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.1764705882 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1176470588 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.23529411765 7.06452816374 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.166705900724 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0532318318752 0.0996497079465 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0750587521287 0.0662205650399 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101947670609 0.162205337803 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0988512133322 0.0443174109184 223% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.