Lecture and article discusses about strategies to eradicate population of cane toad. They are responsible for reducing the number of small insects by feeding on them. Article talks about three solutions to destroy toad population, however lecturer thinks that measures mentioned in reading might not be effective to kill toad. She gives explanation for holding his opinion on the following essay:
Firstly, article mention to create fence in their habitat in order to prevent migration of large number of toad species to other regions. Lecture casts doubt on the statement made in reading. She thinks that creating boundary might not eliminate the issue, because large numbers of toad population can swim across other places as they reside in rivers, oceans and seas. She also adds that few eggs in river are enough to form entire habitat. As a result, she states it is not logical option to create fence.
Secondly, reading states that large number of volunteers should be hired to spot and destroy the toad species. In addition, it would be easier for volunteers to work in confined river where toad species live. Lecture challenges this point made in the lecture. She posits that untrained workers might not be able to differentiate between native species and toad species, as they resemble in physical appearance when they are young. As a consequence, this method might be devastating for the normal frog species.
Thirdly, reading put forth that researchers are indulging in inventing deadly virus to get rid off this species. In contrast, lecture doubts that by saying that virus might cause detrimental effects to other habitats such as reptiles. Furthermore, she argues that virus might native toad species in America due to spread of virus through water. Native toad species plays important role in ecosystem, reduction in numbers can cause imbalance. Thus lecturer successfully argues the solutions presented in reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 442, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...duction in numbers can cause imbalance. Thus lecturer successfully argues the soluti...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, in addition, in contrast, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 48.0 30.3222958057 158% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1630.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25806451613 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57098190792 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 145.348785872 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.558064516129 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 497.7 419.366225166 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 0.0 8.23620309051 0% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.0167266187 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.5555555556 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2222222222 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.66666666667 7.06452816374 109% => 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 : 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: 0.327248660743 0.272083759551 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0997141851039 0.0996497079465 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0788594172442 0.0662205650399 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.201177121469 0.162205337803 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0507735050902 0.0443174109184 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.93 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 63.6247240618 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.