The reading and the lecture are both about the declining population of frog species around the world. The author of the article proposes three solutions to save the frog population. However, the lecturer cast doubt about the claim mentions in the article and refutes all the theories presented in the articles. He says that the presented ideas are not practically possible.
First of all, according to the reading, chemicals use such as pesticides should be prohibited near the frog habitats. On the contrary, the speaker negates the argument presented in the passage. Furthermore, he discusses that the prohibition on the use of pesticides is not fair enough, because farmers widely lie on pesticides to stay competitive in the market. Also, farmers who could not use the pesticides would lose more crops compared to the other farmers who use pesticides for their farm and crops.
Secondly, the author posits that researchers can save the frog population with the help of anti fungal medicines. This treatment would be very protective to frogs if applied on a large scale. Although the lecturer refutes this by asserting that it is extremely hard to capture each frog for treatment. Additionally, this method cannot stop spreading the fungal infection to the next generation, which means researchers have to treat them again and again. Hence, this method is very expensive and complicated.
Finally, reading claims that people can recover the frog population by protecting frogs threatened habitats such as lakes and marshes. On the other hand, the speaker believes that the true reason that threatens the frog's habitats is global warming rather than human activities. Global warming has been contributed to the disappearance of many water habitats and many entire species became extinct. Thus, it is not possible to save the entire population of frog without preventing global warming.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, thus, such as, 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 : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => 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: 1591.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 302.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26821192053 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72913778723 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55298013245 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 489.6 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.8486907164 49.2860985944 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.5882352941 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7647058824 21.698381199 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.52941176471 7.06452816374 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
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: 0.438550053077 0.272083759551 161% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.125867273703 0.0996497079465 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0887501214799 0.0662205650399 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.227280640177 0.162205337803 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.05491886912 0.0443174109184 124% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.99 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.