The reading material and the lecture both are about the harmful consequences of dealing frog population. The reading material provides several solutions in order to prevent this reduction. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the solutions mention in the reading and she says that they are not practical for slowing down the frog population decline.
Firstly, the author claims that using pesticides which are harmful to frogs should be restricted for farmers. In contrast, the lecturer refutes this point. She states that this regulation for some farmers would not be economical fair; because they lose their products and crops due to the prohibition of using pesticide and they will lose the competitive market among other farmers, consequently.
Secondly, the reading says that fungus is one of the major factors in the reduction of frogs population. Therefore, some antifungal medications and treatments would protect the frogs' population. On the other hand, the professor in the listening rejects this solution. She claims that this treatment should apply to each individual frog or each offspring frog in population and we cannot capture each individual and apply the medications. Hence, this solution would be very complicated and expensive for the government.
Finally, the reading material proposes that water is the main habitat for the living frogs; therefore, preventing humans from excessive exploiting water would recover the frog population and the level of water increases. However, the woman in the listening challenges this point. She claims that the reduction of water level in lakes is due to the global warming not human exploiting of water. Therefore, restriction on human exploiting of water cannot affect the changes due to the global warming.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 178, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...ations and treatments would protect the frogs population. On the other hand, the prof...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 5.01324503311 339% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1503.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 276.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44565217391 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73725829358 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 145.348785872 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.489130434783 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 450.0 419.366225166 107% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 54.6963334136 49.2860985944 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.2 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.13333333333 7.06452816374 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.341530476382 0.272083759551 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111731993411 0.0996497079465 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0876138966812 0.0662205650399 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.201213773152 0.162205337803 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0289018727012 0.0443174109184 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.33 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.