The reading and the lecture are both about the decline and the extinction of frog species around the world. The author of the reading believes that the changes in their habitat and human activities causes the decline of frog species. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the reading. She thinks that there is not much human activities involved in the frog species extinction.
First of all the author claims that frog species are harmed by pesticides used by farmers to kill insects. He believes that the chemicals in pesticides attack the nervous system of frogs and eventually dies. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She says that it is not economically practical to stop the use of pesticides. Furthermore, she points out that by stopping the use of pesticides, farmers will lose more crops and less yield.
Secondly, the author states that the fungus spread around the world brings deadly effect to frog species. He argues that the fungus causes of thickening of the skin and the frogs are unable to absorb water. This argument is rebutted by the lecturer. She says that it is difficult to treat each frog individually. She elaborates on this by mentioning that the treatments does not prevent from spreading to the next offspring.
Finally, the author mentions that changes in their natural habitats affect the decline in frog population. He is of the opinion that excessive water use form lakes and marshes causes their eggs to destroy and unable to lay eggs. The lecturer, on the other hand, feels that by minimizing the use of water from lakes does not save the frog population. She puts forth the idea that global warming is the main cause for the decline in frog population.
In conclusion, the lecture and the reading are both discussing about the reasons of frog extinction and how to prevent it. The professor effectively challenges the claims made in the reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 235, 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.
...ies causes the decline of frog species. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, if, second, secondly, so, in conclusion, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 30.3222958057 155% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1585.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 323.0 270.72406181 119% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90712074303 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23936324884 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55554330795 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.455108359133 0.540411800872 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 473.4 419.366225166 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 3.25607064018 338% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => 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: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => OK
Sentence length SD: 25.6464422484 49.2860985944 52% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 79.25 110.228320801 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.15 21.698381199 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.3 7.06452816374 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.444914794374 0.272083759551 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.135632638894 0.0996497079465 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0912592321632 0.0662205650399 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.243769108862 0.162205337803 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0781440919003 0.0443174109184 176% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.8 13.3589403974 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => Flesch kincaid grade is low.
coleman_liau_index: 10.9 12.2367328918 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.85 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.