The reading passage discusses about how in the recent years the population of many frog species around the world have declined and many species have even gone extinct. Different methods for controlling the rate of extinction and decline in the population of frog species have also been discussed in the passage. The lecture, on the other hand, specifically talks about how the preventive measures and methods to solve this environmental problem discussed in the reading passage are not practical enough and gives explanation to support the claim.
First of all, it is said in the reading passage that frogs are greatly harmed by the pesticides used by the farmers in their cropfields to control pests and insects from damaging their crops. Pesticides after entering the frog's body adversely affect their nervous system and cause severe breathing problems. So, the passage insists on imposing laws to prevent the use of pesticides near frog habitats. But, the lecture contrasts this point by saying that it is not at all practical to reduce the amount of pesticides used in the farmlands because this will lead to the downfall of the farmers as it will result in the decline of crop yield. With the decreased crop yield the farmers will no longer stay competitive with other large-scale crop yielders and this will in turn prove to be a severe disadvantage to them.
Another major contributor towards the decline of frog population is the new fungus which causes skin thickening in case of frogs. It is well known fact that frogs use their skin to absorb water and thus, the frogs that are infected by this fungus generally die of dehydration. In the passage, it is suggested that if the treatments, which are recently discovered by researchers, that includes antifungal medications that kills the fungus by heat, are applied on a large scale then it would be of great help in protecting the frogs from infection. But, contrary to the idea suggested in the passage, the lecture puts forward the point that each and every frog living in a particular area would have to be treated individually in order to save the frogs from the deadly effect of the fungus. Treating each frog individually includes capturing each frog and then treating them, which is a ridiculously lengthy process. Moreover, the frogs do not pass on the effect of this treatment to their next generation, so, each new generation needs to be treated all over again, which is practically impossible.
Lastly, it is known from the passage that the natural habitat, i.e., wetlands and marshes, are threatened by human activities like excessive use of water from lakes and other water resources which might be a frog habitat and draining of wetlands for redevelopment. And it suggested that if the water habitats like lakes and marshes are left alone by humans or are better protected, then the frog species would be in less danger. But, the lecture casts doubt on this suggestion and says that rather than draining of wetlands or excessive use of water from lakes and other resources being the main causes for the decline of frog population, global warming is found to be the culprit playing the lead role in the decrease of frog species from all around the world.
Thus, the lecture contrasts every point talked about in the reading passage and gave appropriate reasons to support the claims against the reading passage.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, lastly, moreover, so, then, thus, well, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 10.4613686534 249% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 7.30242825607 274% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 88.0 30.3222958057 290% => Less preposition wanted.
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: 2827.0 1373.03311258 206% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 570.0 270.72406181 211% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.95964912281 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88617158649 4.04702891845 121% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6017307259 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 145.348785872 175% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.445614035088 0.540411800872 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 862.2 419.366225166 206% => syllable counts are too long.
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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 31.0 21.2450331126 146% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 61.7083192663 49.2860985944 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 157.055555556 110.228320801 142% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.6666666667 21.698381199 146% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.16666666667 7.06452816374 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.587900594223 0.272083759551 216% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.205475311047 0.0996497079465 206% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100528632343 0.0662205650399 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.281660190903 0.162205337803 174% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.155568856873 0.0443174109184 351% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 13.3589403974 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.47 53.8541721854 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.08 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 63.6247240618 203% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 10.498013245 137% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.