The author describes that various approaches have been suggested to stop the spread of the cane toad in Australia and brings up three reasons to support this claim. On the other hand, the professor asserts that methods to get rid of cane toad are not as easy as the reading suggests and they are either unsuccessful or cause environmental damage. She refutes each of the author's points with rational grounds.
First, the author states that building a national fence to prevent the spread of the toad would be a good decision. Nevertheless, the speaker points out that erecting a fence is not a right choice. In fact, the young cane toads and their eggs are in the streams and rivers. In this way, building a fence cannot be effective due to the fact that streams can carry young toads and eggs into other sides. To be more specific, although the fences prevent cane toads from spreading, their population can be established through the river in other places.
Second, according to the reading, the toads can be captured by volunteers easily. Conversely, the speaker brings up the idea that volunteer work can be either unsuccessful or destructive. As a matter of fact, volunteers are untrained persons who can cause lots of damage to surrounding environment. The professor takes the Australian native frog as an example. It is an endangered animal that it is hard to apart them from the cane toads, especially when they are young.
Third, the writer expresses that environmental researchers can develop a disease-causing virus to control the cane toad populations. However, the speaker posits that spreading a disease-causing virus can lead to terrible consequences in the original habitat in Central and South America. She says that Australian reptiles and amphibians are brought to other continents, such as central part of America. More precisely, cane toads are the native animals in Central America and by eliminating them, vital animals in the whole environment are removed which disturb the eco-environmental balance and cause lots of ecological disasters.
Therefore, the points mentioned in the reading do not make any sense.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, third, in fact, such as, as a matter of fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1789.0 1373.03311258 130% => OK
No of words: 350.0 270.72406181 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11142857143 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32530772707 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89642848335 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 145.348785872 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522857142857 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 546.3 419.366225166 130% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.6910096128 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.3888888889 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4444444444 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.33333333333 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.44994397728 0.272083759551 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.134387050939 0.0996497079465 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0977288310504 0.0662205650399 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.210556272992 0.162205337803 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.121223723108 0.0443174109184 274% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.