TPO 48 Integrated Writing
The article states that the number of frug species has been declined, and provides three ways to solve this problem. However, the professor explains that none of these methods offer a practical solution and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading states that using pesticides has to be reduced. The professor refutes this point by stating that reducing pesticides is not economical to the farmers of the region. He explains tht farmers rely on pesticides because they don't want to have a decrese in the number of their crops. Moreover, by using pesticides, farmers can still stay competitive toward other farmers in different regions.
Second, the article claims that a kind of fungus affect the decrese of the population of the frogs. However, the professor contends that applying some treatments has to be done for each frog individualy. Consequently, this protecting approach has to be applied in large scales and that is too hard to do that. Moreover, this treatment does not prevent funguses for next generations of frogs, that is, it should be applied to all the frogs in all the times. Therefore, this method of preventing funguses is complicated and expensive.
Third, the reading avers that threats of decreaasing the number of frogs increase by excessive water use of humans. The lecture opposes this poing by stating that using less water does not save frogs' populations. It states that it's not excessive use of water that is threat to the frogs. The problem is the global warming. As a result, The professor explains that using a lot of water is unlikely to decrese the number of frogs in comparison with changes caused by global warming.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 241, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...farmers rely on pesticides because they dont want to have a decrese in the number of...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, still, therefore, third, as to, kind of, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1398.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 279.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01075268817 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08696624509 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62924664341 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508960573477 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 421.2 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.2883695987 49.2860985944 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 87.375 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4375 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.75 7.06452816374 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.303215745273 0.272083759551 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0960562558973 0.0996497079465 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0651985576087 0.0662205650399 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158822884519 0.162205337803 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0901823497799 0.0443174109184 203% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.48 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => 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: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.