The main idea of both the passage and the lecture is about how can avoid to spreading of cane toads across Australia? In this line of thought, the reading states that preventing to prevalent of cane toads and describe some solutions. The lecturer, on the other hand, casts doubt on all the three episodes of arguments mentioned in the passage, believing that none of these strategies are practical and lead to the real world. In the rest of the passage, a comparison between them is provided.
First of all, the reading and the listening materials talk about to build a national fence that is the blocks the advance of the toads will prevent them from moving into those parts of Australia that they have not yet colonized. The author is emphasizing on this statement. On the contrary, the lecturer believes this solution can sum up a few amounts of cane toads because young toads and toad eggs are found in rivers and streams. No matter where the fence is located, at some point there will be rivers or streams flowing from one side to the other. This directly contradicts what the passage indicates.
Second, both the text and the talk discuss the toads could be captured and destroyed by volunteers. The author points out that cane toads can easily be caught in simple traps and can even be captured by hand. Young toads and cane toad eggs are even easier to gather and destroy since they are restricted to the water. Therefore, the author elaborates that if the Australian government were to organize a campaign among Australian citizens to join forces to destroy the toads, the collective effort might stop the toad from spreading. However, the lecturer notes that these untrained volunteers would inadvertently destroy many of Australia's native frogs. Some of which are endangered. It's not always easy to tell the cane toad apart from native frogs especially when it's young. This was another place where experience contradicted the theory.
Eventually, a disease-causing virus which is discussed by both the passage and the lecture. The author mentions that although it will be able to infect a number of reptile and amphibian species, it will not harm most of the infected species; it will specifically harm only the cane toads. The lecturer rebuts this argument. She states that Australian reptiles and amphibians are often transported to other continents by researchers or pet collectors for example. Once the animals infected by the virus reach Central and South America, the virus will attack the native cane toads and devastate their populations. That would be an ecological disaster because in the America cane toads are a native species and a vital part of the ecosystem. This opinion directly contradicts the passage presented and making it infeasible.
Sum up, although the passage provides some solutions to preventing from spreading out cane toads population, the lecture opposes about the effectiveness and possibility of those reasons.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 455, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'destroying'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'force' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: destroying
...mong Australian citizens to join forces to destroy the toads, the collective effort might ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 686, Rule ID: IT_IS[6]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: It's; It is
...ve frogs. Some of which are endangered. Its not always easy to tell the cane toad a...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, so, therefore, apart from, for example, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 10.4613686534 201% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 22.0 7.30242825607 301% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 64.0 30.3222958057 211% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2479.0 1373.03311258 181% => OK
No of words: 490.0 270.72406181 181% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.05918367347 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70488508055 4.04702891845 116% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66984409131 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 248.0 145.348785872 171% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.50612244898 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 765.0 419.366225166 182% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 16.0 8.23620309051 194% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 13.0662251656 191% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.4554717177 49.2860985944 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.16 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.84 7.06452816374 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 4.45695364238 337% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.63737126663 0.272083759551 234% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.154547577882 0.0996497079465 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.125315668048 0.0662205650399 189% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.338986759211 0.162205337803 209% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.125202564615 0.0443174109184 283% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 63.6247240618 179% => 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: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.