Based on the set of materials, both the author and the speaker discuss the extinction of frog species. The author states tree possible solutions to diminish this declination while the lecturer casts doubt and gives several counterarguments in response.
Initially, the author puts forward the idea that imposing restricting laws for using harmful pesticides may help frogs to survive. On the contrary, the lecturer rejects this thesis by clarifying that this solution is not economically feasible as lead to severe cost for farmers. Farmers use these chemical materials to increase the crops production. Thus, by introducing strict regulations, they lose huge crops and have significant disadvantage than other farmers and could not compete anymore.
Second, the author posits that treating frogs from deadly fungus which harm them through their skins in large scale would protect frog populations. Yet again, the lecturer repudiates this idea too. As she says this kind of treatment needs to apply individually and each frog should be captured and cured separately. Furthermore, this treatment doesn't inherit by offspring and they need to be treated as well. As a result, the whole process is too complicated and costly.
The last idea proposed by the reading states that decreasing human activities which cause a destruction of wetlands where frogs usually live, could help frog species to grow. On the other hand, the lecturer states that although the idea of protecting frog habitats is a good remark, the chief reason for these environmental changes is not human activities and global warming is the main problem which cause the wetlands dried. Also, the trend of global warming and habitat changes is unlikely influenced drastically by diminishing human activities.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 333, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'crops'' or 'crop's'?
Suggestion: crops'; crop's
...hese chemical materials to increase the crops production. Thus, by introducing strict...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 345, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...separately. Furthermore, this treatment doesnt inherit by offspring and they need to b...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, if, may, second, so, thus, well, while, kind of, as a result, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1505.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41366906475 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77987743338 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 145.348785872 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.611510791367 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 446.4 419.366225166 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.8850208592 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.5 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8571428571 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.21428571429 7.06452816374 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.348330456494 0.272083759551 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106144565873 0.0996497079465 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105371685632 0.0662205650399 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.187719984376 0.162205337803 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0535771620329 0.0443174109184 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.58 8.42419426049 114% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.