According to the passage, it is the authors' conviction that three mentioned method in the passage would save the frog populations. However, the professor casts doubt on this claim and reject each method by providing some evidence which will be explained in the following paragraphs.
Firstly, the reading asserts that chemical pesticides are harmful to frog so laws should prevent from using pesticides near sensitive frog population. On the other hand, the lecturer refuses this method by pointing out that it would cause serious problems for farmers as the farmers utilize pesticides to increase their crops and keep the prices as low as their competitors. As a result, if they want to eliminate pesticides, farming would not be economical for farmers. Consequently, this method is not practical enough to be applied.
Secondly, the writer states that fungus cause infection in frogs which lead the frogs to death, hence, the antifungal medication should be done on the frogs. Conversely, the professor implies that this method should be applied in each frog which makes this method significantly difficult. She also adds that frogs can not pass this to their offsprings so this method should be applied again and again.
Thirdly, the passage postulates that frog habitats should be saved from human utilization as human use water in the lake is harmful to frogs. On the contrary, the professor mentions that human utilization is not a problem for frog habitat and their habitat is damaged by global warming. Thus, this method is not beneficial for frog populations.
In conclusion, the professor expresses that none of the methods has explained by the author is applicable.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 37, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
According to the passage, it is the authors conviction that three mentioned method ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, conversely, first, firstly, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, in conclusion, 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 : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1412.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 271.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21033210332 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73345321013 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523985239852 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 422.1 419.366225166 101% => 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: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.3956233573 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.615384615 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8461538462 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.3846153846 7.06452816374 189% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.363837275591 0.272083759551 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.144757179757 0.0996497079465 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100970397903 0.0662205650399 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.194645831651 0.162205337803 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.125346678855 0.0443174109184 283% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 13.3589403974 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.0 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.