The lecture raises three arguments to cast doubt on the suggestions proposed by the reading passage on frog protection. The reasons why those possible solutions will not solve the problem are as follows.
Firstly, the professor rules out the possibility of prohibiting pesticides use around frog habitats, pointing out that it would be a great disadvantage for the farmers, who rely on pesticides to guarantee ample yield in their farms. Therefore, Controlling the use of pesticides is economically impractical and unfair to them.
Second, contrary to the passage that medication and treatment can be used to cure the fungus infection in frogs, the professor argues that treatment needs to be carried out individually in large scale, making it complicated and expensive. Moreover, the treatment cannot prevent the disease from passing to offspring, so the medication has to be done again and again.
Lastly, the lecturer asserts protecting lakes and marshes by reducing water usage will not likely to be effective, citing the evidence that habitat loss is not the main cause of the decline in frog population. Instead, the professor attributes it to the trend of global warming, which cannot be solved by control excessive water use.
All in all, based on the three arguments mentioned above, the solutions provided by the reading material are not likely to solve the issue of declining frog populations.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, lastly, moreover, second, so, therefore, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => OK
Pronoun: 10.0 22.412803532 45% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1192.0 1373.03311258 87% => OK
No of words: 225.0 270.72406181 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.29777777778 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.87298334621 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85769137592 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 145.348785872 93% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.6 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 373.5 419.366225166 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.116997792494 855% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.9622888897 49.2860985944 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.444444444 110.228320801 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 21.698381199 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.44444444444 7.06452816374 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.311058732173 0.272083759551 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108348437003 0.0996497079465 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.05702555807 0.0662205650399 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149450464684 0.162205337803 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0559182598795 0.0443174109184 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 13.3589403974 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 53.8541721854 70% => It means the essay is relatively harder to read.
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.07 8.42419426049 120% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.