The passage state the different solutions which can be used to solve the problems of the declining frog population. However the lecture presents several opinions which cast doubt on the reading.
Firstly the reading state that, reducing the use of pesticides by farmers would be beneficial for frog populations. The reading argues that when pesticides are used, they are very dangerous to frog populations and inhibit on their state of health. This is different from the saying of the lecture. The lecture claims that pesticides are not the cause of frog declination. According to the talk, families rely on pesticides for them not to loose their crops. So the point made in the lecture is in contradiction to the reading.
Secondly the reading argues that a fungus spread in the region improve the decline of frog population. The passage claims that the fungus affect the state of health of the frog and in order to solve this problem, the fungus must be eradicated. This is contrary to the idea from the lecture. The lecture state that inorder to treat those frog, they need to be caught one by one. This cost a lot of money and it would be a waste of money. From this above reason, the lecture cast doubt on the reading.
Furthermore according to the passage, the natural habitat of the frog is threatened. The reading claims that large water resources must be protected from excessive use. This differs from the talk in that the talk state that it is because of natural warming and not excessive use of water.
In conclusion, according to the lecture, pesticides, fungal disease and threatening of natural habitat are not the cause of extinction of frog. All these reasons contribute to the contradiction of the reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The passage state the different solution...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 123, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...blems of the declining frog population. However the lecture presents several opinions w...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ons which cast doubt on the reading. Firstly the reading state that, reducing...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 447, Rule ID: LOOSE_LOSE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'lose' (= miss, waste, suffer the loss etc.)?
Suggestion: lose
...lies rely on pesticides for them not to loose their crops. So the point made in the l...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... is in contradiction to the reading. Secondly the reading argues that a fungu...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... lecture cast doubt on the reading. Furthermore according to the passage, th...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 9, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
... cast doubt on the reading. Furthermore according to the passage, the natural h...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ing and not excessive use of water. In conclusion, according to the lecture,...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 30.3222958057 155% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1442.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88813559322 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62120493508 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 130.0 145.348785872 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.440677966102 0.540411800872 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 448.2 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.3029831236 49.2860985944 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 75.8947368421 110.228320801 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.5263157895 21.698381199 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.31578947368 7.06452816374 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 4.19205298013 191% => 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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.379144156641 0.272083759551 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.120861206949 0.0996497079465 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0807822492465 0.0662205650399 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.220776539564 0.162205337803 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0525113093076 0.0443174109184 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.4 13.3589403974 70% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 53.8541721854 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 11.0289183223 73% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.79 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.48 8.42419426049 89% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => 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.