TPO-15 - Integrated Writing Task 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 insec

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 if toad lays few eggs in the river, they 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 of this predator 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 and that species play important role in ecosystem, reduction in numbers can cause imbalance. Thus, lecturer successfully argues the solutions presented in reading.

Votes
Average: 7.8 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

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 : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => 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: 1661.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 316.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25632911392 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56928311999 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.556962025316 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 503.1 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 3.25607064018 307% => 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: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.7478764479 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.7058823529 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5882352941 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.11764705882 7.06452816374 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.324952120432 0.272083759551 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100280493831 0.0996497079465 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0745416073149 0.0662205650399 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.199253940464 0.162205337803 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0494675495777 0.0443174109184 112% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.98 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 63.6247240618 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => 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.