Both the reading passage and the lecture discuss possible methods to slow down the declination of frog population. Albeit the author proposes thee methods to rescue frog population, the lecturer challenges all of them and believes they are not practical and will not solve the problem.
First of all, one method suggested by the reading passage is to prohibit the farmers, whose farms are near sensitive frog population, from using harmful pesticides, as frog breathing system is hugely affected by these pesticides. However, the lecturer states that this method is not economically practical nor is it fair for farmers. Not using pesticides would lead to bad products and in this competitive market, what these farmers would gain is just several disadvantages.
Second, according to the reading passage, as fungus cause the frog skin to become thicker and frogs would die of dehydration, we can treat frogs by using an antifungal medication. Still, the lecturer points to the impracticality of such a method. If we want to apply this method, we have to apply the medication to each individual frog and also each offspring, which certainly is not tangible.
Finally, on the basis of the reading passage, as frogs are totally dependent on water and wetlands, we should protect water habitats from excessive human use not to destroy frog habitats. Yet, the issue is not practical and does not save frog population. As a matter of fact, it is not human usage of water that has threatened frog habitat. It is the global warming that has endangered not only frog but also other species as well.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 377, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...nd also each offspring, which certainly isnt tangible. Finally, on the basis of the...
^^^^
Line 4, column 159, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...water habitats from excessive human use no to destroy frog habitats. Yet, the issu...
^^
Line 4, column 202, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...o destroy frog habitats. Yet, the issue isnt practical and doesnt save frog populati...
^^^^
Line 4, column 221, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...tats. Yet, the issue isnt practical and doesnt save frog population. As a matter of fa...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, second, so, still, well, as a matter of fact, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1326.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 262.0 270.72406181 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06106870229 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02323427807 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72516945701 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.583969465649 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 411.3 419.366225166 98% => 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: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.463408085 49.2860985944 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.5 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8333333333 21.698381199 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.16666666667 7.06452816374 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.461630152237 0.272083759551 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.165709592145 0.0996497079465 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101196994496 0.0662205650399 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.272867125094 0.162205337803 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0798567607117 0.0443174109184 180% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.84 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.