The reading and the lecture are both about frog population decline, which has a deep impact on ecosystems and on human lives because they eat disease-carrying insects that would harm us otherwise. The author believes that this downfall in population can be stopped if humans intervene with laws or treatments. The professor brings into question the claims made in the article. She considers that the proposed measures would fail to solve the problem.
First, the author comes up with the idea that if farmers near endangered frogs were prohibited to use pesticides, the threats to their populations would significantly be reduced. However, the professor argues that it would be neither economical nor fair to impose such laws. She suggests that this would put in disadvantage the farmers who are near amphibian habitats in relation to those who are not.
Second, the passage states that a malign fungus is a major cause in the decline of frog populations. Therefore, if researchers were to apply a treatment that kills the fungus, it would protect amphibian populations from infection. Meanwhile, the professor rebuts this argument by pointing out that the treatment would have to be applied individually, and it is simply not plausible to catch all frogs to then treat them. She highlights that the infection is transmitted to their offspring, so they would have to be treated as well.
Finally, the author contends that the main reason for population decline is habitat loss. The article notes that frogs need aquatic habitats, which are exploited for human development, so protecting these environments would help the frogs to recover. The professor, on the other hand, posits that the greatest cause of habitat destruction is global warming, not development. She puts forth the idea that halting progress will not solve the ongoing climate change.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 311, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...mans intervene with laws or treatments. The professor brings into question the clai...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, second, so, then, therefore, well, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1564.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23076923077 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80877920323 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.588628762542 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 465.3 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.873912385 49.2860985944 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.266666667 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9333333333 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.2 7.06452816374 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
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: 0.394826186672 0.272083759551 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.118497487575 0.0996497079465 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0900261483768 0.0662205650399 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.233168938859 0.162205337803 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0516322081766 0.0443174109184 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.3589403974 99% => 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: 13.05 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27 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.