In the lecture, the professor casts doubts on the three solutions presented in the reading part to solve the problem of declining frog population. As far as she concerned, none of the advice offers a practical solution and each of them has problems.
In the first instance, the reading section claims that forbidding the farmer from using harmful pesticide would reduce the harm pesticides cause to frogs. By contrary, the professor thinks it is not economical or fair to farmers. Farmers need pesticides to protect crops being destroyed by insects and to improve their competence. Prohibiting using pesticides would make farmers suffering losing crops and financial dilemma.
Another point presented by the professor is that the treatment are not practical, which rebuts the statement given in the reading. She thinks there are two major problems. First of all, it is unrealistic to implement the plan because the treatments need to be applied to every individual. It is a large scale to work. Second, even if the illness is able to be cured, the treatment can't prevent the infection from spreading. Such potential risks would make the proposal extremely complicated and expensive.
Finally, the listening part asserts it is the global warming instead of huge water use that cause the frog's natural habitat endanger. The global warming can make entire species extinct. And it is responsible for damaging habitats of lots of animals, not just frogs.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 382, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ness is able to be cured, the treatment cant prevent the infection from spreading. S...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, second, so, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 12.0772626932 33% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1226.0 1373.03311258 89% => OK
No of words: 235.0 270.72406181 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2170212766 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91531732006 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70631607036 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.612765957447 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 369.0 419.366225166 88% => 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: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.2488927034 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.7333333333 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.6666666667 21.698381199 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.26666666667 7.06452816374 46% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 53.8541721854 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.7 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.22 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.