Both the author and the lecturer discuss the problem of frog's declination. Whereas the author posits there are several solutions to this issue, the lecturer contradicts these claims and provides evidence to the contrary.
First, the author argues that the presence of pesticides in the frogs' habitat causes breathing problem for them. These pesticides which are used for preventing insects from damaging crops should be prohibited by law near the area where frogs are living. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that it is not economically practical for farmers to follow this strict rules. If they do not use these chemicals, they will lose more crops in comparison to farms which are not near frogs habitat.
Furthermore, according to the reading passage, the fungus can cause skin thickening for frogs, which they breathe through it, and it can lead them to dehydration. Thus, there is a treatment that can kill fungus and should be used for frogs population protection. On the contrary, the professor underlines the fact that this treatment is difficult to use because it should be done for individuals, and needs to apply again in several steps. Hence, it is a complicated and expensive way that makes it unreasonable.
Finally, the author holds the view that frogs habitats which are lakes and marshes are in real danger. This makes problems for frogs that are dependent on water to lay eggs there. For this reason, people should stop the excessive water usage of these wetlands and causing them to dry out. The lecturer, on the other hand, strongly challenges this concept. She mentioned that the drainage of water in wetlands is because of global warming, and prohibiting people does not help lakes not to dry out.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 65, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
... that the presence of pesticides in the frogs habitat causes breathing problem for th...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, finally, first, furthermore, hence, if, so, thus, whereas, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1454.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 288.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04861111111 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59807621135 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.534722222222 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 435.6 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.7764142843 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.9333333333 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 4.45695364238 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.367514252626 0.272083759551 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.129676819334 0.0996497079465 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0954157330185 0.0662205650399 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.211401164365 0.162205337803 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0865567104293 0.0443174109184 195% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => 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: 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.