In the lecture, the professor makes a series of points that cast doubt on all the arguments presented in the reading passage about methods of saving frog from declining their population. She states pointed methods in the reading are not practical solusion.
First of all, the lecturer states that not using pesticide by farmer is economically problematic and is not fair. In fact, making stricter rules for using pesticide has impact on the crop's production of farmers specially who live near the frog habitat. They would lose their crop more, compare to the farmers who live in other places. Therefore, it is not a fair decision.
Also, the speaker points out that for treating the fungus related thickening of frog's skin the treatments have to be applied indivitually and in large scale is very difficult. Infected frogs have to be captured and fed with treatment material. In addition,treatment do not pass trough offsprings and offsprings need treatment as well. Therefore, the treatment is very complicated and not easy practice.
Lastly, the lecturer refutes the impact of human activities on threatening water habitats of frogs. She says that global warming is the reason of endangering water habitats and entire species are in danger. Thus, changing the human activities seems unlikely to be the only reason of changing the frogs and their water habitat and change the situation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 184, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'crops'' or 'crop's'?
Suggestion: crops'; crop's
...s for using pesticide has impact on the crops production of farmers specially who liv...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 256, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , treatment
...fed with treatment material. In addition,treatment do not pass trough offsprings and offsp...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, if, lastly, so, therefore, thus, well, in addition, in fact, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1165.0 1373.03311258 85% => OK
No of words: 226.0 270.72406181 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15486725664 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.87727950738 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77893367932 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 145.348785872 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.58407079646 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 353.7 419.366225166 84% => 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: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.7670170982 49.2860985944 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.6153846154 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3846153846 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.61538461538 7.06452816374 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => 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: 0.354772403735 0.272083759551 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102836109368 0.0996497079465 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0807663036462 0.0662205650399 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178435381307 0.162205337803 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0276259978076 0.0443174109184 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.29 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.