Both the passage and the lecture discuss the invasion of the Cane toad, a large amphibian that was originally introduced in Australia to deal with pests but ended up harming native species and is now rapidly spreading. The passage proposes three ways of dealing with the invasion. However, the lecturer stands that said measures will not only be unsuccessful but could even damage the environment.
First, the author of the passage suggests that a national fence should be raised. The article mentions that this would prevent the toads to invade new, un-colonized areas. It is also noted that a similar procedure has been performed in the past to control rabbits from spreading. The Professor in the lecture challenges this idea. She points out that a fence would be useless in this case because the toads could move through waterways such as rivers. Moreover, she adds that it would only take phew toads to pass through and colonize an entire area.
Second, the text says that the government should incentivize citizens to hunt these amphibians. The author claims that volunteers could easily catch and destroy the animals. The lecturer rebuts this idea. She establishes that untrained volunteers could end up harming species other than the cane toad. Furthermore, she mentions that the toads are difficult to differentiate from other species, so this measure could backfire.
Finally, The passage states that researchers are developing a virus to wipe out the animals. The text supports this idea because it would control the toad's invasion with ease. The lecturer opposes this method because as she notes, the virus could reach their native habitat, causing severe ecological damage. The professor posits that researchers could take infected toads back to Central America, where they play a crucial role in the ecosystem.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 151, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'toads'' or 'toad's'?
Suggestion: toads'; toad's
... this idea because it would control the toads invasion with ease. The lecturer oppose...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 310, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...itat, causing severe ecological damage. The professor posits that researchers could...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, second, so, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1539.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21694915254 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52770003202 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.559322033898 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 467.1 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.23620309051 170% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.3806996659 49.2860985944 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.5 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.3888888889 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.55555555556 7.06452816374 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.374023790188 0.272083759551 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100561262341 0.0996497079465 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0691058478854 0.0662205650399 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.219167994532 0.162205337803 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0288685620561 0.0443174109184 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.7 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.