According to the reading passage several methods have been asserted to solve the problem of reducing frog population. However, in the listening the professor refutes what states in the reading by proving three strong reasons.
Firstly, in the reading passage, it is said that frogs are being harmed by pesticides. Furthermore, if laws restricted the farmers from using harmful pesticides near frog habitats, it would reduce the harm pesticides cause to frogs. In contrast, the professor in the listening claims that this method is not economically practical or fair. Farmers use pesticides to increase their crops and compete in the market; if the farmers near the frog habitats follow this law to protect frogs they severe disadvantages and also lose more crops and yield.
Secondly, reading passage says that using antifungal medication and treatments that kill the fungus with heat on the large scale would protect sensitive frog population from infection. However, in the listening the professor states that this method would be very arduous and expensive because each frog individuals should be captured to be treated and also this method should be applied again to the next generation of frogs. So, this method is not very practical.
Finally, the reading states that if water habitats such as lakes and wetlands were better protected from water use and development, many frogs would recover because they mostly live in water. On the other hand, in the listening, the professor rejects this method. She believes that wetlands mostly decline due to the global warming; so, preventing from water use and development had no positive effect on ongoing habitat changes caused by global warming.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, in contrast, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1436.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 271.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29889298893 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58039402034 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.553505535055 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 433.8 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.23620309051 36% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.3527004908 49.2860985944 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.666666667 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5833333333 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.83333333333 7.06452816374 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.46670588138 0.272083759551 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.164450480064 0.0996497079465 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.137134182669 0.0662205650399 207% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.265968338968 0.162205337803 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0989877449838 0.0443174109184 223% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.3589403974 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.